Raj Kumar Gautam Vs State of U P. and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Sudhir Agarwal, J.@mdashWrit petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on recall application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. This writ petition is directed against the punishment order dated 25.01.2009 and the appellate order dated 11.07.2009 whereby the punishment of withholding of integrity has been imposed by petitioner and his appeal there-against has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said punishment is without jurisdiction since under Rule 4 of U.P. Police officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1991") there is no such punishment like withholding of integrity and, therefore, imposition of said punishment is wholly without jurisdiction. He placed reliance on an Apex Court''s decision in State Bank of India and others Vs. T.J. Paul, and a recent decision in Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein the Apex Court has said that punishment not prescribed in Rules cannot be imposed upon a delinquent employee as a result of departmental inquiry. The Court in para 11 of the judgment in Vijay Singh (supra) said:

11. The issue involved herein is required to be examined from another angle also. Holding departmental proceedings and recording a finding of guilt against any delinquent and imposing the punishment for the same is a quasi-judicial function and not administrative one. (Vide: Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, ; Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364; Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and Others Vs. Ananta Saha and Others, .

Imposing the punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by the statutory rules. Therefore, while performing the quasi-judicial functions, the authority is not permitted to ignore the statutory rules under which punishment is to be imposed.

The disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to the said rules.

Thus, the order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the appellant.

3. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that withholding of integrity is not one of the punishment provided in Rules, 1991 and, therefore, could not defend the impugned orders. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.01.2009 and 11.07.2009 are hereby cashed. However, this order shall not preclude the disciplinary authority from passing any fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.