Allahabad High Court
CMRA/153/2025 of OM KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , PNO NO. 040470069 Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 17 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 153 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the review applicant. 2. The instant review application has been filed under Chapter V Rule 12 of Allahabad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 153 of 2025
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the review applicant.
2. The instant review application has been filed under Chapter V Rule 12 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2025 passed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the review applicant has pointed out that the original punishment order passed against the petitioner/applicant was for stopping one annual increment for three years, which is a minor penalty. The learned Tribunal, in the judgment and order impugned, had modified the punishment and directed one annual increment to be stopped for one year, which is also a minor penalty.
4. This Court has erroneously observed that the punishment order originally was of stopping one increment for three years, which is a major penalty. It is a minor penalty according to the petitioner/applicant as per Rule 4 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
5. The order dated 17.11.2025 is modified to the extent that instead of the observation in the last sentence of paragraph 24 that the major penalty of stopping of one increment for three years with cumulative effect, it should be read as the minor penalty of stopping one increment for three years without cumulative effect.
6. The review application stands disposed of accordingly. December 17, 2025 Shubhankar Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Om Kumar Srivastava , Pno No. 040470069 .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench