MAHESHWAR DAYAL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was a Constable. It appears that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and his services have been terminated on 14.4.1980. It appears that the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case. The petitioner has not challenged the termination order. When the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case, he moved an application for his reinstatement, appears to be some time in 1986. When the application has not been considered, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 246 of 1987, which has been disposed of vide order dated 5.1.1987 with the direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within two months. In pursuance thereof, the representation of the petitioner has been decided on 25.5.1988 and the same has been rejected on the ground that he has no power to review his own order. It is also observed that the petitioner's services were temporary.

(3.) It was the contention of the petitioner that he had sent the memorandum of appeal on 12.8.2002 by registered post. It appears that when the appeal has not been decided, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52296 of 2011 for the direction to decide the appeal. The writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 9.9.2011 asking the appellate authority to decide the appeal within three months. It appears that when the appeal has not been decided, the petitioner filed a Contempt Application No. 3625 of 2012, which has been disposed of vide order dated 24.8.2012 asking the appellate authority to comply with the order of this Court. In pursuance thereof, the appeal has been decided vide order dated 16.9.2012, which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. In the said order, it is stated that the alleged appeal dated 12.8.2002 has not been received in the office. The petitioner was not able to produce any documents to prove that the appeal was filed on 12.8.2002. It is stated that for the first time, the memorandum of appeal has been provided on 1.4.2012. It is observed that the limitation to file the appeal was three months and under Rule 20 (6) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the power to condone the delay is only for six months and the appeal has been accordingly dismissed as barred by limitation. Against the said order, the petitioner filed revision, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2013, which is impugned in the present writ petition.