The Allahabad High Court has held that delay in filing a revision under Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the Rules neither expressly exclude the Limitation Act nor create any bar against condonation of delay.

Rule 23(1) of the Rules entitles a police officer whose appeal has been rejected to apply for revision to the superior authority next above the appellate authority, within three months. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies Sections 4 to 24 of that Act, which include Section 5, the provision for condonation of delay, to limitation prescribed by a special or local law, except to the extent expressly excluded by that law.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,

“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 appellant, a Constable, was alleged to have remained absent without leave. He was dismissed from service in disciplinary proceedings by order dated 30.11.2004, and his statutory appeal was rejected. He preferred a revision before the Inspector General of Police, Meerut under Rule 23 on 06.07.2006, with a delay of one and a half years. It was dismissed as time-barred.

A single judge dismissed his writ petition on 08.05.2026, reasoning that the revision was beyond limitation and there being no power to condone the delay, it had rightly been rejected. The appellant challenged that order in an intra-Court appeal.

The Court observed that it was not the case of the State that any provision of the Rules expressly excluded the Limitation Act, and neither Rule 23 nor any other rule barred condonation or fixed an outer limit up to which delay could be condoned. It held that the three-month period was not rigid, relying on the first proviso to Rule 23(1), which permits the revising authority to call for the record of an appellate order on its own motion where no revision has been preferred.

“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.”

Referring to 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 Authroity, the Court held that the principle invoked by the single judge and by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel had no application.

“That principle applies only with respect to statutes that not only prescribe a period of limitation, but further restrict the power to condone the delay, either absolutely or conditionally-for a specified period of time. Typically, such provisions exist in modern fiscal statutes.”

Finding a clear error on principle in the reasoning of the single judge, the Court allowed the intra-Court appeal and the writ petition and set aside the order dated 08.05.2026 as well as the order impugned in the writ petition dated 22.08.2006.

Noting that 20 years had passed since the revision was preferred and that the State had cited no special circumstance to oppose condonation, it held that no useful purpose would be served in remitting the question of delay, and directed the revising authority to decide the revision on merits, treating the delay as condoned, by a reasoned and speaking order.

Case Title: Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690

Counsel for Appellant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava, Priyanka Sharma

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Click Here To Read/Download Order