Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite party No.1 i.e. the Secretary, Home Department, Grih (Police), Anubhag-1, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2019 under Rule 25 of U.P. Police Officers Subordinate Rank (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (here-in-after referred to as the "Rules, 1991"), as contained in Annexure No.2 to this writ petition, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not file statutory appeal before the Competent Authority under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991 within stipulated time. It has been submitted that in case any employee does not approach the appellate authority by filing statutory appeal, a representation under Rule 25 can be preferred where no time limit is prescribed, therefore, a direction for disposal of the aforesaid representation may be given.
There is statutory prescription of filing appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991 and thereafter the revision under Rule 23 can be filed, so it is incumbent upon the employee concerned to file such statutory appeal and revision. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then any employee can very well circumvent the statutory prescription to file appeal and revision and he/she shall straight away approach the State Government by filing application under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 after the statutory period of filing appeal and revision expires.
However, Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 prescribes that the employee concerned can approach the concerned authority directly if the appeal has not been preferred and the State Government may confirm or modify or revise the order passed by such authority or may direct further inquiry in the matter or may reduce or enhance the penalty imposed or make such other order in case it may deem fit where it is proposed to enhance the penalty imposed by such order the police officer concerned shall be given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. Therefore, the bare perusal of Rule 25 clarifies that under Rule 25 the State Government may not set aside the punishment order; only the order under challenge may be confirmed or modified or revised or order for further enquiry may be passed or the punishment may be enhanced after affording an opportunity. The order under challenge can be set aside or confirmed by the statutory appellate or reviewing authority.
Therefore, in view of the above, the State Government before whom the representation dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure no. 2) has been filed by the petitioner is directed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law with expedition preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order of and decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.
While passing such appropriate order the authority concerned shall consider the relevant facts that as to whether the statutory prescriptions regarding filing of appeal and revision can be circumvented by approaching the State Government under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991.
With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]