JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

"I. Issue, a writ, or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 & 24.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 & 3 respectively, The Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Range, Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur & The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Range, Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, (Annexure -3 & 5 to the Writ Petition)

II. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent authorities to delete punishment of withholding the integrity into service records of the Petition and further consider for promotion if any proposed."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that entry of withholding the integrity has been awarded in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner by the Reporting Authority vide order dated 20.01.2021 while the petitioner was rendering her services under the capacity of Inspector in Kushi Nagar and the same has been communicated well within time as prescribed under the 1995 Rules, [The Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Disposal of Representation Against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995].

4. Being aggrieved with the entry dated 20.01.2021, the petitioner approached the Reviewing Authority i.e. respondent no.3 vide representation dated 22.10.2021 that was beyond the limitation of 45 days as prescribed under the rules, but the same has been duly considered by way of detailed discussion of the grounds as elaborated by the petitioner and dismissed the same vide order dated 24.06.2022.

5. After availing the statutory remedy prescribed under the Rule 4 of the 1995 Rules, the petitioner preferred a detailed revision before Accepting/Competent Authority on dated 16.09.2022.

6. The order dated 20.01.2021 passed by Reporting Officer as well as order dated 24.06.2022 passed by Reviewing Authority has been upheld by the Accepting/Competent Authority i.e. respondent no.2 vide order dated 26.10.2022 by way of rejecting the entire claim as set out by the petitioner for showing her bonafide over the assessment as drawn by the Reporting Authority.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner framed his case on the basis that the punishment which has not been mentioned under the 1991 Rules, [Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991], the same cannot be imposed by any of the authority who is competent under the rules against any employee who is rendering his services in the Department of U.P. Police as a Subordinate Officer. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Narendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ A No.25665 of 2012, decided on 23.05.2012 , judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court at Lucknow Bench in Satya Deo Sharma Vs. State of U.P. : Service Single No.1315 of 2003, decided on 02.04.2013 and judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No.3550 of 2012, decided on 13.04.2012.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition by way of elaborating his arguments on the basis that the entry as reported against the petitioner is different to the punishment as mentioned under the 1991 Rules, the punishment as prescribed in the 1991 Rules can only be imposed after adopting the procedure as defined under the statutory provisions specifically mentioned under the 1991 Rules which is applicable in the case of the petitioner but the matter put under challenge by way of filing the instant petition is not the case of punishment, whereas it is the case of entry in the ACR of the petitioner, which has been endorsed by t