JUDGMENT :

(C.M. Application No.54552 of 2019)

1. Heard.

2. Present review application has been filed by review-applicant under Rule 12, Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 read with Section 114/151 of C.P.C. in regard to judgment and order dated 28.03.2019, whereby this Court dismissed the petition challenging the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal, U.P, Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to "Tribunal"), constituted under Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to "Act of 1976").

3. The submission of learned counsel for the review-applicant is that from the date of order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Appellate authority on an appeal filed by the petitioner-applicant under Rule 11 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to "Rules of 1999") challenging the order of punishment dated 20.03.2015, the claim petition was within time, as such, it ought to have been decided on merits and the order of Tribunal dated 27.02.2019 was liable to be interfered with by this Court but this Court dismissed the writ petition, as such, the instant review application is liable to be allowed.

4. In support of his contentions, Sri Tripathi has placed before this Court the relevant provisions of Rules of 1999 and the Act of 1976 including Rule 11 of the Rules of 1999 and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1976. Except this, nothing has been argued.

5. By the order dated 27.02.2019, Tribunal dismissed the petition finding it to be barred by limitation under Section 5 of the Act of 1976.

6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review-applicant and perused the record.

7. Brief facts, which are required for final disposal of present review application are that admittedly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the review-applicant in terms of the Rules of 1999 and the procedure, which was adopted in the disciplinary proceedings, as appears from the record, was as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999.

8. By the punishment order dated 20.03.2015, review-applicant was awarded censure entry and his integrity was doubted. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal dated 11.04.2016, which was rejected being barred by limitation vide order dated 25.01.2017.

9. Present matter revolves around the Rules of 1999 particularly Rule 11 and Section(s) 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1976, as the counsel for the review-applicant did not place any other Act or Rules before this Court in support of his case.

10. It would be apt to refer here that Rule 11 of the Rules of 1999 provides remedy of appeal, which being relevant on reproduction reads as under:-

"11. Appeal.-(1) Except the orders passed under these rules by the Governor, the Government servant shall be entitled to appeal to the next higher authority from an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2) The appeal shall be addressed and submitted to the Appellate Authority. A Government servant shall preferring to an appeal shall do so in his own name. The appeal shall contain all maternal statements and argument relied upon by the appellant.

(3) The appeal shall not contain any intemperate language. Any appeal, which contains such language may be liable to be summarily dismissed.

(4) The appeal shall be preferred within 90 days from the date of communication of impugned order. An appeal preferred after the said period shall be dismissed summarily."

11. A perusal of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1999 shows that the appeal should be preferred within a period of 90 days' from the date of communication of an order and it further, shows that the appeal preferred after the said period shall be dismissed summarily. The power to condone the delay in filing the appeal to the Appellate authority has not been indicated in the Rule, quoted above. On the other hand, it provides that an appeal preferred after the prescribed period of limitation shall be dismissed su