In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to reconsider the appeal of Siraj Hussain, a dismissed constable of the Uttar Pradesh Police. Siraj Hussain, who served as a constable from February 1, 1982, until his dismissal on May 28, 2010, was charged with unauthorized absence from duty. The disciplinary proceedings against him culminated in his dismissal following an inquiry report dated November 21, 2008.
Legal Issues Involved
The case primarily revolves around procedural fairness and the right to appeal. Key legal issues include:
– Condonation of Delay: The appellate authority’s refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
– Jurisdiction and Authority: The powers of the appellate and revisional authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
– State Government’s Power under Rule 25: The scope of the State Government’s authority to review decisions of subordinate authorities.
Court’s Decision
Justice J.J. Munir presided over the case, with Mr. Alok Mishra representing the petitioner and Mr. Jogendra Nath Verma representing the respondents. The court’s judgment, delivered on July 23, 2024, addressed several critical points:
1. Condonation of Delay: The court noted that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay, without considering the merits of the delay condonation application as directed by a previous Division Bench order dated September 21, 2016.
“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.”
2. State Government’s Jurisdiction: The court criticized the Additional Chief Secretary’s remarks about the High Court’s previous order, emphasizing that the Additional Chief Secretary had no jurisdiction to comment on the court’s proceedings.
“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. The remarks in paragraph No. 6 of the impugned order are ex facie contumacious.”
3. Merits of the Case: The court found the State Government’s dismissal of the petitioner’s representation under Rule 25 to be flawed, as the petitioner had never successfully lodged an appeal due to the rejection of his delay condonation application.
“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.”
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court quashed the State Government’s order dated February 1, 2022, and directed the State Government to reconsider Siraj Hussain’s statutory representation under Rule 25 within six weeks. The court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the duty of appellate authorities to consider the merits of delay condonation applications.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: WRIT – A No. 7162 of 2023
– Bench: Justice J.J. Munir
– Petitioner: Siraj Hussain
– Respondents: State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow and another
– Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Alok Mishra, Advocate
– Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.
