HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 698 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2026 1. Cause shown for the delay in filing the special appeal is sufficient. 2. Delay in filing the present special appeal is condoned. 3. Delay condonation application stands allowed. In Re: Order on Appeal 4. Heard Ms. Ashana Agrawal, learned counsel for the original petitioner- appellant and Ms. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Union of India. 5. On merits we find no occasion to interfere with the order dated 01.07.2026 in Om Prakash Gautam vs. Union of India (2026:AHC:130597). 6. Undeniably, the petitioner was visited with a penalty order dated 19.12.2025, whereby he was dismissed from service and the appeal order dated 22.12.25, whereby that penalty order was confirmed. It is equally undisputed that the above orders were directly under challenge in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, being Writ-A No.20617 of 2002, Om Prakash Gautam versus DIG of Police CRPF and others. Taking note of the challenge, the said writ petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 08.05.2014. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Agresh Agrawal, Ashana Agrawal, Dilbag Singh Khanuja, Purnwasi Lal Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Ex-Constable Om Prakash Gautam .....Appellant(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 7. That order of the learned single judge was made subject matter of challenge in Special Appeal No.553 of 2014, Om Prakash Gautam versus Deputy I.G. of Police and two others. It was dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 02.07.2014. The matter may not have been carried any further at that stage. 8. Thus, besides the issue of delay in filing the second writ petition in 2026, more than 14 years after the dismissal of the first writ petition, more materially, once the penalty order as confirmed by the appeal order was not interfered with in the earlier writ petition, it may have never survived to the petitioner to file a revision against that appeal order before a statutory authority. That remedy was plainly lost to the petitioner, occasioned by his own conduct of challenging the appeal order directly in a writ petition. 9. The writ petition having been entertained on merits and thereafter dismissed after due consideration of the petitioner's case, it attained finality, inasmuch as the petitioner never challenged the order of the writ court. 10. Thus, the penalty order passed by the departmental authority was not only confirmed by the appeal authority, and that had attained finality, that order too had attained finality occasioned by the exercise of judicial review instituted by the petitioner. Having itself failed on merits, in such circumstances, the petitioner may not be allowed an opportunity to file a statutory revision after the writ court has found no error in the appeal order. If allowed, it would defeat the element of finality that otherwise attaches to the proceedings instituted at the instance of the petitioner himself. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for mandamus that may have been made by the petitioner, to direct the revising authority to decide the petitioner's revision has been rightly rejected by the learned single judge. The appeal is meritless, and it is accordingly dismissed. 12. No orders as to costs. SPLAD No. 698 of 2026 2 September 29, 2026 S.A. SPLAD No. 698 of 2026 3 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad