IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 989 OF 2011 (S/S) Krishan Pal Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. I. D. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. I. D. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner had earlier challenged his termination order before this Court by way of a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1039 of 2010 (SS) which was dismissed as the petitioner had not availed an alternative remedy for filing a statutory departmental appeal provided under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Sub ordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Consequently a departmental appeal was filed by the petitioner through his counsel. This appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority stating that no decision is liable to be taken on such an appeal as the same has not been filed by the petitioner but by his counsel. It is this order presently being challenged by the petitioner. State counsel Mr. N. P. Sah has referred Rule 14(3) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Sub ordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which reads as follows: “14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings.— (1) … (2) … 2 (3) The charged police officer shall not be represented by Counsel in any proceedings instituted under these Rules.” The State counsel has therefore argued that is such an appeal is filed by the counsel it is not liable to be considered in view of the aforesaid provision. The decision of the Deputy Inspector General is absolutely correct and therefore no interference is called for by this Court. The petitioner though is at liberty to pursue the above remedy available to him in case he does so in accordance with law. It is directed that the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits. The appellate authority shall also sympathetically consider the condonation of delay, while such an appeal is moved. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.8.2011 Kuldeep