IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to prescribed rules when imposing punishments; any deviation renders the punishment invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, the disciplinary authority dated 3.6.2023 in a disciplinary proceeding, whereby, petitioner's integrity is directed to be withheld for one year.

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that this punishment order which has been passed described as is not punishment as such under the order impugned but it is directed at the same time that it may be considered for the purpose of determination of satisfactory service. He submits that either in a disciplinary proceeding, disciplinary authority after due inquiry can either hold the petitioner guilty of the charges and impose punishment of any nature major or minor prescribed under the rules or shall absolve the petitioner from the charges. The disciplinary authority, it is argued, is not empowered to make out a third case to impose punishment which is not prescribed under the Rules.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this controversy of the power of disciplinary authority to impose a punishment not prescribed under the Rules is no more res integra. He submits that in the matter of Surendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(11) ADJ 346, followed by a concurrent bench of this Court in Writ A No. 10597 of 2021, Rajiv Kumar Tomar v. State of U.P. and others decided on 26.8.2021 it has been held that a punishment that is not prescribed as such, cannot be imposed. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:

''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 s