Right Of Appeal And Revision Denied On Technical Grounds Of Delay: Allahabad HC Criticises State’s Approach In Handling Case Of Dismissed Constable
The Allahabad High Court criticised the State’s approach in handling the case of the dismissed constable and said that he was denied the right to appeal and revision on technical grounds of delay.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by a constable who was dismissed from the Uttar Pradesh Police.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir observed, “We must say that the petitioner has been denied his right of appeal and revision on the technical ground of delay under Rules 20 and 23 of the Rules. The remedy under Rule 25 is of wide import casting a duty on the State Government to see that no injustice is done.”
Advocate Alok Mishra appeared for the Appellant and Jogendra Nath Verma appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner, a Constable in the Civil Police was dismissed for unauthorised absence. He was dismissed based on the Inquiry Officer's report. His appeal was rejected for being time-barred. The Public Service Tribunal also dismissed his claim. The High Court quashed these decisions but his appeal was again rejected for the same reason. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition which led to a directive for the State to decide on his representation under Rule 25. However, the State Government dismissed his representation citing procedural and merit-based reasons. The petitioner then filed this current petition on the ground that he has never been heard on the merits of his challenge by any of the departmental fora of appeal and revision with all of them throwing out his case either on a limitation or some other ground of maintainability.
While noting that the Division Bench ordered the delay condonation matter to be considered on merits the Court observed, “once the judgment has become final inter partes, it was the Appellate Authority's duty to have considered the explanation for the delay on merits, while deciding the delay condonation application in the appeal afresh, pursuant to the command of this Court.”
The Court further said that the Deputy Inspector General of Police had no business to speak or opine contrary to the orders of the Division Bench and observed, “The only course open to him was to examine the delay condonation application on merits regarding the explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal. He could not have relied on the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 20 of the Rules and hold the appeal again to be barred by an uncondonable period of limitation.”
The Court observed, “There is absolutely no power or jurisdiction with the Additional Chief Secretary to comment on the record or proceedings of this Court in the slightest measure.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order of the State Government and partly allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Siraj Hussain v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:49553)
