Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Since pleadings are complete, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear and decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court.

2. This writ petition is directed against the punishment order dated 14.3.2011 whereby the punishment of withholding of integrity has been imposed by petitioner.

3. 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 v. T.J. Paul, 1999(3) JT 385 and a recent decision in Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2012(4) SC 105, 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.

4. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is not disputed that impugned order withholding of integrity for the year 2010 has been passed by way of punishment and as a result of disciplinary proceeding held against petitioner. In para 5 and 11 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that disciplinary proceeding was initiated against petitioner and after completing inquiry the authorities found it appropriate to impose punishment of withholding of integrity for the year 2010 and, hence, passed impugned order. It is also pleaded that withholding of integrity is consistent with various Government orders, i.e., 28.12.1959, 7.10.1966, 3.7.1979, 15.12.1980, 16.5.1981 and 21.12.1993, copies whereof have been filed collectively as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel contended that in view of the guidelines and provisions made in aforesaid Government orders, it cannot be said that there is any error on the part of disciplinary authority in imposing punishment of withholding of integrity and, therefore, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is not in dispute that disciplinary proceeding of a police officer of subordinate rank is now regulated by Rules, 1991, which have been framed in exercise of power conferred under Section 46(2) and (3) read with Sections 2 and 7 of Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1861”). It thus also cannot be disputed that, if, as a result of disciplinary proceeding, a punishment is to be awarded, such punishment must be prescribed in Rules, 1991 and then only can validly be imposed upon a police officer of subordinate rank. The various kinds of punishments which can be imposed are prescribed in Rule 4. It is admitted between the parties that withholding of integrity is not one of the punishment prescribed in Rule 4 of Rules, 1991.

7. The question, whether a punishment, which is not prescribed in Rules, can be imposed, came to be considered by Apex Court in Vijay Singh (supra) and returning in negative, in para 11 thereof, the Court 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 v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1963 SC 395; Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364; Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 10 SCC 539; and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and others v. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5 SCC 142).

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 t