JUDGMENT : 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. 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. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2021, passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 2321 of 2018; Amol Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others and the order dated 11.06.2018, passed by opposite party no. 3, whereby the claim petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected being time barred. 4. 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 vs. State of U.P. and Others. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2018 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 11.06.2018. 5. It was thereafter that the petitioner preferred a claim petition challenging the order dated 11.06.2018 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. 6. 6. 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. 11.06.2018. The claim petition was preferred within the prescribed period of limitation of one year from 11.06.2018 and, as such, it was not time barred. Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the claim petition treating it to be time barred. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 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. 8. 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 preferred under these rules. 9. Submission is that Rule 25 of Rules of 1991 would not be attracted in the present case as the petitioner cannot take the benefit of filing representation without exhausting the remedy of appeal and revision, as provided under the said Rules. It was not a statutory representation preferred by the petitioner and, as such, the period of limitation shall be counted from the date of punishment orders and not from the date on which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. 10. We have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 11. It was not a statutory representation preferred by the petitioner and, as such, the period of limitation shall be counted from the date of punishment orders and not from the date on which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. 10. We have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 11. As per the admitted facts of the case, the punishments of censure entries was awarded to the petitioner under Rules of 1991, particularly Rule 4 which reads as under: “4. Punishment - (1) The following punishments may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon a Police Officer, namely:- (a) Major Penalties:- (i) Dismissal from service. (ii) Removal from service. (iii) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. (b) Minor penalties:- (i) With-holding of promotion. (ii) Fine not exceeding one month's pay. (iii) With-holding of increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iv) Censure.” Rules 20 and 23 of Rules of 1991 clearly stipulates the provision of appeal as well as revision against the punishments awarded under Rule 4 of Rules of 1991. It also provides the limitation under which the said appeal and revision can be filed. The provision of Rule 20 and 23 of Rules of 1991 are reproduced as under: “20. Appeals: (1) Every Police Officer, against whom an order of punishment mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of Clause (a) and sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (b) of rule 4 shall be entitled to prefer an appeal against the order of such punishment to the authority mentioned below: (a) to the Police Officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the order of punishment. (b) to the Director General of Police who may either decide the appeal himself or nominate any Additional Director General for deciding it. (c) to the State Government against the order passed under Clause (b). (2) No appeal shall lie against an order inflicting any of the petty punishments enumerated in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4. (3) Every officer desiring to prefer an appeal shall do so separately. (c) to the State Government against the order passed under Clause (b). (2) No appeal shall lie against an order inflicting any of the petty punishments enumerated in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4. (3) Every officer desiring to prefer an appeal shall do so separately. (4) Every appeal, preferred under these rules shall contain all materials, statements, arguments relied on by the Police Officers preferring the appeal, and shall be complete in itself, but shall not contain disrespectful or improper language. Every appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of final order which is the subject of appeal. (5) Every appeal, whether the appellant is still in service of Government or not, shall be submitted through the Superintendent of Police of the district or in the case of Police Officers not employed in district work through the head of the office to which the appellant belongs or belonged. (6) An appeal will not be entertained unless it is preferred within three months from the date on which the Police Officer concerned was informed of the order of punishment: Provided that appellate authority may at his discretion, for good cause shown extend the said period up to six months. (7) If the appeal preferred does not comply with the provisions of sub-rule (4) the appellate authority may require the appellant to comply with the provisions of the said sub-rule within one month of the notice of such order to him and if the appellant fails to make the above compliance the appellate authority may dispose of the appeal in the manner as it deems fit. (8) The Director-General or an Inspector-General may for reasons to be re corded in writing, either on his own motion or on request from an appellate authority before whom the appeal is pending transfer the same to any other officer of corresponding rank.” “23. Revision: (1) An officer whose appeal has been rejected by any authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the superior authority next to the authority which has rejected his appeal within three months from the date of rejection of appeal as mentioned below: (a) to the Police officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the appellate order. (b) to the Director General of Police who may either decide the revision himself or nominate any Additional Director General for deciding it. (c) to the State Government against the order passed under Clause (b). On such an application the powers of revision may be exercised only when, in consequent of flagrant irregularity, there appears to have been material injustice or miscarriage of justice: Provided that the revising authority may on its own motion call for and ex amine the records of any order passed in appeal against which no revision has been preferred under this rule for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit: Provided further that no order under the first proviso shall be made except after giving the person effected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2) The procedure prescribed for appeal applies also to application for revision. An application for revision of an order rejecting an appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the original order as well as the order of appellate authority.” 12. Rule 25 of Rules of 1991 is an enabling provision under which the State Government has been empowered to confirm, modify or revise the order passed by any such authority or direct that a further enquiry be held in a case or reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by the order or make such other order in the case as it may deem fit on its own motion or otherwise after calling for and examining the records of any case decided by the authority, subordinate to it. It does not mean that a delinquent employee without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal and revision as provided under Rules 20 and 23 of Rules of 1991 can avail the powers of State Government under Rule 25 of Rules of 1991 by making a representation. In case the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is accepted, it will frustrate the entire scheme of Rules as provided under Rules of 1991 relating to punishment and the appeal and revision thereafter. 13. We cannot accept the arguments made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. In case the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is accepted, it will frustrate the entire scheme of Rules as provided under Rules of 1991 relating to punishment and the appeal and revision thereafter. 13. We cannot accept the arguments made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Now, if we examine the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2021, passed by learned Tribunal, we see that the learned Tribunal has dealt, in detail, the provisions under Rules of 1991 and the relevant legal position with respect to the limitation in approaching the Court. 15. Learned Tribunal has rightly relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.S. Rathor vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (1989) 4 SCC 582 and judgment of this court in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Petition No. 28869 (S/B) of 2017. Learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the claim petition preferred by the petitioner was time barred and, as such, is liable to be rejected. 16. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2021, passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 2321 of 2018, Amol Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others. 17. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.