IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is a settled proposition of law that punishment not prescribed under the rules, as a result of disciplinary proceedings cannot be awarded.
2. 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.
3. Withholding integrity merely does not cause stigma, rather makes the person liable to face very serious consequences.

Headnote:Service Law- U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991- Rule 4-Order passed by Disciplinary authority withholding integrity certificate of appellant for the year 2010-Appeal-Dismissed-Revision-Dismissed-Writ petition-Dismissed-Appeal- Admittedly, the punishment imposed upon appellant was not provided for under Rule 4 of Rules 1991-The order passed by Disciplinary Authority withholding the integrity certificate as a punishment for delinquency was without jurisdiction, not being provided under Rules 1991, since the same could not be termed as punishment under the Rules- Order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules was a nullity and could not be enforced against the appellant-Impugned order withholding integrity certificate for the year 2010 and all subsequent orders in this regard quashed-Appeal allowed (Paras 8 to 17)
       Facts of the Case :
        The only question involved in present appeal was as to whether the disciplinary authority could impose punishment not prescribed under statutory rules after holding disciplinary proceedings.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. Admittedly, the punishment imposed upon the appellant is not provided for under Rule 4 of Rules 1991. Integrity of a person can be withheld for sufficient reasons at the time of filling up the Annual Confidential Report. However, if the statutory rules so prescribe it can also be withheld as a punishment. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority withholding the integrity certificate as a punishment for delinquency is without jurisdiction, not being provided under the Rules 1991, since the same could not be termed as punishment under the Rules. The rules do not empower the Disciplinary Authority to impose “any other” major or minor punishment. It is a settled proposition of law that punishment not prescribed under the rules, as a result of disciplinary proceedings cannot be awarded. Thus, the order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the appellant.
        B.If the revisional authority was of the view that integrity could not be withheld as punishment, why the mistake committed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority could not be rectified by him. This shows a total non-application of mind. In such a fact-situation, the subordinate officer has to face the adverse consequences without any fault on his part. The grievance raised by the appellant that recording the past criminal history of an accused is relevant in non-bailable offences only as it may be a relevant factor to be considered at the time of grant of bail, and he did not record the same as it was a bailable offence, has not been considered by any of the authorities at all. Undoubtedly, the statutory authorities are under the legal obligation to decide the appeal and revision dealing with the grounds taken in the appeal/revision etc., otherwise it would be a case of non- application of mind.
        C. In the result, appeal was allowed. The impugned order withholding integrity certificate for the year 2010 and all subsequent orders in this regard were quashed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

It is a settled proposition of law that punishment not prescribed under the rules cannot be awarded as a result of disciplinary proceedings. (!) (!) (!)
The imposition of punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by statutory rules, and quasi-judicial authorities are not permitted to ignore these rules. (!) (!)
Withholding an integrity certificate merely does not cause stigma but makes a person liable to face very serious consequences. (!) (!)
The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority withholding the integrity certificate as a punishment for delinquency was without jurisdiction because it was not provided under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. (!) (!)
Since the punishment (withholding integrity certificate) was not listed in Rule 4 of the 1991 Rules (which lists Major and Minor Penalties), the order is outside the purview of statutory rules and is a nullity that cannot be enforced. (!) (!) (!)
The rules do not empower the Disciplinary Authority to impose "any other" major or minor punishment beyond those explicitly prescribed. (!)
The analogy of nulla poena sine lege applies, meaning a person should not suffer a penalty except for a clear breach of existing law; similarly, in service law, punishment not prescribed by statute cannot be imposed. (!)
The revisional authority and appellate authorities committed a mistake by not rectifying the error of imposing a non-prescribed punishment, showing a total non-application of mind. (!) (!)
The grievance raised by the appellant regarding the recording of past criminal history in bailable offences was not considered by the authorities, constituting a failure to apply their mind to the grounds of appeal. (!) (!)
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders withholding the integrity certificate for the year 2010 and all subsequent orders were quashed. (!) (!)
The respondents are directed to consider the appellant's case for all consequential benefits, including promotion, afresh in accordance with the law. (!)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 39609 of 2011, wherein the case of the appellant against the order of punishment in disciplinary proceedings has been rejected as the revisional authority had held that against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the revision was not maintainable. The High Court held that on such facts the writ petition was not worth entertaining.

3. The instant case is an eye opener as it reveals as to what extent the superior statutory authorities decide the fate of their subordinates in a casual and cavalier manner without application of mind and then expect them to maintain complete discipline merely being members of the disciplined forces. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:

A. The appellant when posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station, Moth, District Jhansi in the year 2010, had arrested Sahab Singh Yadav for offence punishable under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act and after concluding the investigation, filed a chargesheet before the competent court against the said accused.

B. During the pendency of the said case in court, a show cause notice was served upon him by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi dated 18.6.2010 to show cause as to why his integrity certificate for the year 2010 be not withheld, as a preliminary enquiry had been held wherein it had come on record that the appellant while conducting investigation of the said offence did not record the past criminal history of the accused.

C. The appellant filed replyto the said show cause notice on 4.7.2010 pointing out that the said offence was bailable. The purpose of finding out the past criminal history of an accused is relevant in non-bailable cases as it may be a relevant issue for considering his bail application. More so, withholding the integrity could not be the punishment and as the criminal case was sub judice before the competent court against the said accused on the chargesheet submitted by him, no action could be taken against the appellant unless the court comes to the conclusion that investigation was defective.

D. The disciplinary authority, i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police without disclosing as under what circumstances not recording the past criminal history of the accused involved in the case had prejudiced the cause of the prosecution in a bailable offence and without taking into consideration the reply to the said show cause, found that the charge framed against the appellant stood proved, reply submitted by the appellant was held to be not satisfactory. Therefore, the integrity certificate for the year 2010 was directed to be withheld vide impugned order dated 8.7.2010.

E. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 20.8.2010 raising all the issues including that it was not necessary to find out the past criminal history of the accused in bailable offence and the punishment so imposed was not permissible under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1991”). The appeal stood rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 29.10.2010.

F. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred a revision before the Additional Director General of Police which was dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2011 observing that withholding integrity certificate did not fall within the ambit of the Rules 1991. Therefore, the said revision could not be dealt with on merit and thus was not maintainable.

G. Aggrieved, appellant filed a Writ Petition which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2011. Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised all the issues which had been agitated persistently by the appellant in his show cause reply, grounds

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 296

2012 (3) Supreme 20SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. B.S. Chauhan & Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.Vijay Singh — Appellants versus State of U.P. & Ors. — Respondents Civil Appeal No. 3550 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27600 of 2011)Decided on : 13-04-2012

Cases Referred (13)

2012 (3) Supreme 20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan & Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
Vijay Singh — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3550 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27600 of 2011)
Decided on : 13-04-2012