The Allahabad High Court has held that the three-month limitation period prescribed for filing a revision under Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, does not by itself make the period absolute.
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi ruled that where the Rules do not expressly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the revising authority has the power to consider and condone delay in filing a revision.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Vijay Kumar, a police constable whose service had been terminated following disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged absence without leave.
He was dismissed from service by an order dated November 30, 2004. His statutory appeal was also dismissed. He subsequently approached the Inspector General of Police, Meerut by filing a revision under Rule 23 of the 1991 Rules.
The revision was filed after a delay of about one and a half years and was rejected as time-barred. The learned Single Judge later upheld that approach, holding that the revision had been filed beyond the prescribed limitation and that there was no power to condone the delay.
Vijay Kumar then challenged that decision before the Division Bench.
The Bench examined Rule 23, which provides three months for filing a revision after rejection of an appeal. The Court also considered Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which deals with situations where a special or local law prescribes a different limitation period.
The Court noted that the police Rules contain no express provision excluding the Limitation Act. It also found that neither Rule 23 nor any other provision in the Rules imposes an outer limit on the power to condone delay.Court's Observation
The Bench relied on the legislative scheme of Rule 23. In particular, it examined the provision allowing the revising authority to examine an appellate order on its own motion where no revision has been preferred.
The Court observed:
"The words 'against which no revision has been preferred' clearly indicate that the suo motu power of the Revising Authority, may be exercised only after the 90 days limitation prescribed under Rule 23(1) of the Rules, have expired."
The Bench said this provision itself showed that the right to seek revision exists during the three-month period and that the statutory scheme could not be read as creating an absolute bar against a delayed revision.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper & Another v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority, concerning the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act where a special statute does not expressly exclude it.
The Bench further clarified:
"In absence of any provision-either negating the power of the Revising Authority, to condone the delay or to restrict the power to condone the delay upto an outer limit, and not beyond, there is no sanction in law-to reason that the period of limitation of three months prescribed under Rule 23(1) of the Rules, was absolute."
Decision
The Division Bench held that Section 5 read with Section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revisions filed under Rule 23 of the 1991 Rules. It found that the Single Judge had erred in treating the three-month period as an absolute bar to condonation of delay.
Since the revision had been filed in 2006 and around 20 years had passed, the Bench found no useful purpose in sending the matter back merely to decide whether the delay should be condoned. It therefore treated the delay as condoned.
The Court allowed the intra-Court appeal and the writ petition, set aside the Single Judge's order dated May 8, 2026, as well as the order dated August 22, 2006, and remitted the revision to the Revising Authority for consideration on merits.
The authority was directed to decide the revision through a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within three months.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others
Case Number: Special Appeal Defective No. 593 of 2026
Judge: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
Decision Date: September 1, 2026
