Rajiv Kumar Tomar vs State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 1694

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1694

YASHWANT VARMA
Rajiv Kumar Tomar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ishir Sripat, Atipriya Gautam and Vijay Gautam.

JUDGMENT :

[Yashwant Varma, J.]

1. Learned counsels for parties are ad idem that the impugned order would not sustain in light of the decision rendered in Surendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(11) ADJ 346. That decision was dealing with an issue of whether withholding of integrity was a punishment which was contemplated under the relevant rules. Dealing with the aforesaid issue, the learned Judge held thus:

''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 questio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document