Revisional jurisdiction limited to legality and propriety cannot be used as a second appeal to reappreciate evidence.

Revisional power under Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is confined to testing the legality, propriety and regularity of the appellate order. It is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and does not permit a second re-hearing on facts or a fresh reappreciation of evidence. Interference with factual findings is justified only where the order suffers from illegality, impropriety, perversity, misreading or ignoring material evidence, or causes miscarriage of justice. A revisional authority that merely prefers another view on the same material exceeds jurisdiction; the appellate relief was therefore restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority under Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 could reappreciate evidence and substitute its own view for that of the appellate authority while exercising revisional power.

Analysis: The revisional power under Rule 23 is confined to examining the legality, propriety and regularity of the appellate order. It is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and does not authorise a second re-hearing on facts. Interference with findings of fact is justified only where the order suffers from illegality, impropriety, perversity, misreading of evidence, ignoring material evidence, or resulting in miscarriage of justice. Where the revisional authority merely draws a different inference from the same material without identifying any legal infirmity in the appellate decision, it exceeds jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revisional authority could not reappreciate the evidence and replace the appellate authority's conclusion merely because another view was possible.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was beyond jurisdiction and could not stand, so the petitioner succeeded and the appellate relief was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction limited to legality, propriety and regularity cannot be used as a second appeal to reappreciate evidence and substitute a different factual conclusion absent demonstrable illegality, impropriety or perversity in the order under revision.

---