The Allahabad High Court has held that the three-month limitation prescribed under Rule 23(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for filing a revision is not an absolute bar where the Rules neither exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act nor prescribe any outer limit for condonation of delay.
The division bench observed that “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, or that delay was not condonable with reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”
The order was passed by a division bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi on a special appeal filed by Vijay Kumar against the order of the single judge dated May 8, 2026.
The appellant was represented by advocates Avnish Kumar Srivastava and Priyanka Sharma, while the State was represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Arimardan Singh Rajput.
Read also: Right to Regularization Survives Employee’s Death, Rules Allahabad High Court
The court was considering the legality of dismissal of the petitioner’s revision as time-barred. Vijay Kumar, who had been appointed as a constable, was proceeded against departmentally after he allegedly remained absent without leave.
He was dismissed from service by order dated November 30, 2004. His statutory appeal was also dismissed, following which he filed a revision before the Inspector General of Police, Meerut, under Rule 23 of the 1991 Rules. The revision was filed with a delay of one and a half years and was dismissed as time-barred.
The single judge had upheld the dismissal of the revision on the reasoning that it was filed beyond the prescribed period and that, in the absence of power to condone the delay, it had rightly been rejected as time-barred. The division bench, however, found “a clear error on principle” in that reasoning.
Read also: Strong Suspicion Sufficient to Frame Bribery Charge Against Tax Officer: Allahabad High Court
The bench noted that Rule 23(1) provides three months for an officer whose appeal has been rejected by an authority subordinate to the Government to submit a revision before the superior authority.
At the same time, neither Rule 23 nor any other provision under the Rules expressly excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act or creates a specific bar against condonation of delay under Section 5.
The court also examined the first proviso to Rule 23(1), under which the revising authority can, on its own motion, call for the records of an appellate order against which no revision has been preferred.
According to the bench, the words “against which no revision has been preferred” indicate that this suo motu power can be exercised only after the 90-day limitation period has expired.
Read also: Mere Presence, Relationship Cannot Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad HC
The court said the provision itself provides intrinsic evidence of legislative intent that a revision can arise even after expiry of the three-month period.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper & Another vs. Excise and Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority (2020) 17 SCC 692, the bench held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply where the special law does not expressly exclude it.
It distinguished the principle relied upon by the single judge and the State, observing that it applies to statutes which not only prescribe a limitation period but also restrict the power to condone delay, either absolutely or for a specified period.
The bench further observed, “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, or that delay was not condonable with reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”
The court concluded that “Plainly, on the own force of Section 5 read with Section 29 of the Limitation Act read with 23(1) of the Rules, the power to condone delay in filing revision exists with the Revising Authority.”
It held that the single judge had committed a clear error in taking a contrary view.
Considering that the revision had been filed in 2006 and nearly 20 years had passed, the bench found no useful purpose in remitting the matter merely for consideration of the delay issue, particularly as the State had cited no special circumstance opposing condonation of the one-and-a-half-year delay.
The court accordingly allowed the intra-court appeal and writ petition and set aside the order passed by the single judge dated May 8, 2026, as well as the impugned order dated August 22, 2006.
The matter was remitted to the Revising Authority to hear and decide the revision on merits, treating the delay as condoned.
The authority was directed to decide the revision as expeditiously as possible by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within three months.
Case: Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. And 2 Others
Date of Order: 01.09.2026
Status: Allowed
