JUDGMENT :

1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel appearing on' behalf of opposite party No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 28.6.2021, passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 2321 of 2018; Amol Kumar Sharma y. State of U.P. and others and the order dated 11.6.2018, passed by opposite party No. 3, whereby the claim petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected being time barred.

As per the facts of the case in brief, the petitioner while working on the post of Sub Inspector in U.P. Police was awarded minor punishments of five censure entries for the incidence relating to the year 2012-13. The petitioner did not file departmental appeals against the order of punishment. He had moved a representation dated 20.10.2017 before the State Government. The State Government did not decide the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6378 (SS) of 2018; Amol Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.2.2018 by the High Court with a direction to the State Government to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months. The State Government thereafter in compliance of High Court's order decided the representation and rejected the same vide order dated 11.6.2018.

3. It was thereafter that the petitioner preferred a claim petition challenging the order dated 11.6.2018 and seeking a direction not to take into consideration the impugned punishment of censure entries for the purpose of his promotion. Learned Tribunal considering the submissions made by the petitioner as well as counsel for the opposite parties rejected the claim petition holding that the representation preferred by the petitioner was not statutory representation and, as such, the period of limitation shall be counted from the date of punishment orders and accordingly the claim preferred by the petitioner was time barred and therefore liable to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2017 was preferred under Rule 25 of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991) and, as such, it was a statutory representation. Once it was rejected the period of limitation shall be counted from the date of rejection of that order i.e. 11.6.2018. The claim petition was preferred within the prescribed period of limitation of one year from 11.6.2018 and, as such, it was not time barred. Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the claim petition treating it to be time barred.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties No. 2, 3 & 4, on the other hand, submits that as per the Rules of 1991 a delinquent employee who is awarded minor punishments of censure entries under Rule 4 (b) can file an appeal under Rule 20 of Rules of 1991 within a period of three months. Even after exhausting the remedy of appeal the delinquent employee can prefer a revision under Rule 23 of Rules of 1991. In the present case the petitioner did not avail the statutory departmental remedy of appeal under Rule 20 of Rules of 1991 and revision under Rule 23 of Rules of 1991 and preferred a representation, that too, after approximately four years from the date of punishment order.

6. It is also submitted that Rule 25 of Rules of 1991 empowers the State Government to act on its own motion or otherwise call for and examine 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 and against which no appeal has been pr