JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

Heard Mr. Vijay Gautam, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mis. Atipriya Gautam, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 5.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13.5.2022 passed by respondent-4 i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), whereby integrity of the petitioner for the year 2021 withheld by the respondent-4.

3. Mr. Vijay Gautam, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the issue as to whether the integrity of a police personnel can be withheld or not under the Service Rules is no-longer res-intgra. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgement of Single Bench of this Court in re: Surendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (11) ADJ 346, as well as the order of a learned Single Judge rendered in Rajiv Kumar Tomar v. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (1) ADJ 240. For ready reference order dated 26.8.2021 passed in aforementioned writ petition is reproduced herein under :

''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 annual