- (1.) R. Dayal, J. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-3-1994 of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the order dated 2-7-1991 passed by the Superintendent of Police Railways, Gorakhpur, appellant No. 3, removing the respondent, police constable, from service and also the order dated 31- 12-1991 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Railways, U. P. Lucknow, appellant No. 2, whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent against the order dated 2-7-1991 was dismissed, were quashed and the appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent within a month on production of a certified copy of the judgment before the appropriate authority.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri R. C. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the respondent, about maintainability of this appeal since the order dated 31-12-1991 was passed by appellant No. 2 m exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of the Court) provides for special appeal from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Court. At the same time it inter alia provides that no such appeal lies from a judgment made in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment order or award of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution The order dated 31-12-1991 was pressed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police appellant No. 2, in exercise of the power of appeal conferred by Rule 20 of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. These rules were made by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh m exercise of the powers under sub-sections (2) of Section 46 read with Sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf with a view to regulating the departmental proceedings, punishment and appeals of the police officers of the subor dinate ranks of the Uttar Pradesh Force. These rules are undoubtedly statutory and the power exercised while passing the order dated 31-12-1991 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Railways was in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Sri H. R. Mishra, leaned Standing Counsel, has however, submitted that in the writ petition from which this special appeal has arisen not only the order of the Deputy Inspector General of police was challenged but also the order by the Superintendent of Police and as such the anneal is maintainable against the order passed by the Superintendent of Police This argument ignored the fact that once an appeal was preferred the original got merged m the appellate order and now is not possible to say that the original order is in existence independently from the order passed by the appellate authority. Order of reinstatement could not be passed nor was passed. merely by quashing the order dated 2-7-1991 but also the appellate order dated 31-12-1991. As the order of the appellate authority has become final by the judgment of the learned single judge the order from which the appeal arose cannot alone be challenged in the special appeal, for it cannot be said that though the appellate order is bad vet the original order which was confirmed in appeal is good. Once it is found that the writ petition was filed against on appellate order and that appellate order was quashed on the original side by a learned Single Judge 01 the High Court, it has to be held that appeal does not lie under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court. We, therefore, hold that the appeal is not maintainable The same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost. Appeal dismissed. .;