Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 1 to decide his representation dated 04.5.2007, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner while working as Constable in 37th Bn. P.A.C. Kanpur, was dismissed from service vide order dated 03.10.2006 on the allegation that he remained absent since 09.8.2005 to 11.3.2006. The petitioner preferred a representation before the Principal Secretary, Home on 4th May, 2007 and when no action was taken, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 16.9.2011 but in vain.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government has power under Rule 25 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 thereby calling for and examining the records of any case decided by an authority subordinate to it in the exercise of any power conferred on such authority by these rules, on its motion or otherwise.
Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the meaning of word 'otherwise' used in the Rules can lead to only one inference i. e. the grievance of an employee if comes to the knowledge of the State Government either to some other source or by the concerned employee without filing the appeal, then it is incumbent upon the State Government to examine the decision of the authority subordinate to him.
The petitioner raised his grievance by means of representation dated 4th May. 2007 and subsequently he also sent a legal notice on 16.9.2011 but till date no action has been taken.
The precise prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in order to meet the ends of justice, directions be issued to the opposite party no. 1 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a time-frame fixed by this Court.
Sri Rajeev Misra, learned Standing Counsel, while opposing the writ petition, submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal but he has not availed the same and, as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
On due consideration, this Court finds that the State Government has power to examine the decision of any authority subordinate to it under Rule 25 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991, on its motion or otherwise thereby calling the record.
Admittedly, in the present case, no appeal has been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the opposite party no. 1 to examine the validity of the dismissal order passed against the petitioner.
In view of the above, it is hereby directed that the Principal Secretary, Home will consider the representation of the petitioner dated 4.5.2007 and decide the same in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 2.11.2011 ashok