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 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 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.''

.......

9. In view of above noticed overwhelming authorities, it leaves no scope for this Court but to hold the impugned order patently illegal and without jurisdiction, being a punishment, not prescribed in Rules.

10. However, before parting I would also like to notice the stand taken by respondents with respect to various Government orders dealing with the matter of ''withholding of integrity''.

11. In administrative matters an employee is supposed to be watched by superior officers regularly and his work and performance is annually assessed and put on record by superior officers every year, which process, normally is called as recording of Annual Character Roll or Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACR'). The normal hierarchy for recording of ACR at initial level is the just superior officer termed as ''Reporting Officer'', who assess the work and performance of officer concerned and the aforesaid assessment recorded by ''Reporting Officer'' is subject to acceptance and review by ''Accepting Authority'', who is the next in hierarchy to the ''Reporting Officer'' and then to the another next officer in hierarchy called Reviewing Officer. In a very few matters the process of recording of ACR is two tier level consists of Reporting Officer and Accepting Officer. Besides, other traits, certification of integrity is one of the part, integrally connected, with the assessment of work, performance and conduct of officer concerned and, therefore, it is a regular feature of ACR. This aspect is fortified from the va