Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   3550  OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.  27600 of 2011)

Vijay Singh                                   …Appellant Versus

State of U.P.  & Ors.                         …Respondents

O R D E R  

1. Leave granted.  

2. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  impugned  

judgment  and  order  dated  19.7.2011  passed  by  the  High  

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 39609 of  

2011, wherein the case of the appellant against the order of  

punishment in disciplinary proceedings has been rejected as  

the  revisional  authority  had  held  that  against  the  order  

passed  by the  disciplinary  authority,  the  revision  was  not  

maintainable.  The High Court  held that  on such facts  the  

writ petition was not worth entertaining.  

3. The instant case is  an eye opener as it  reveals as to what  

extent  the  superior  statutory authorities  decide  the fate  of  

their subordinates in a casual and cavalier manner without  

application  of  mind  and  then  expect  them  to  maintain

Page 2

complete  discipline   merely  being  members  of  the  

disciplined forces.    

The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:

A. The appellant  when posted as Sub-Inspector  of  Police  at  

Police Station, Moth, District Jhansi in the year 2010, had arrested  

Sahab Singh Yadav for offence punishable under Section 60 of  the  

U.P.  Excise  Act  and  after  concluding  the  investigation,  filed  a  

chargesheet before the competent court against the said accused.  

B. During the pendency of the said case in court, a show cause  

notice was served upon him by the Senior Superintendent of Police,  

Jhansi  dated  18.6.2010  to  show  cause  as  to  why  his  integrity  

certificate  for  the  year  2010  be  not  withheld,  as  a  preliminary  

enquiry  had  been  held  wherein  it  had  come  on  record  that  the  

appellant while conducting investigation of the said offence did not  

record the past criminal history of the accused.  

C. The appellant filed reply to the said show cause notice on  

4.7.2010  pointing  out  that  the  said  offence  was  bailable.  The  

purpose  of  finding out  the  past  criminal  history of  an accused  is  

relevant  in  non-bailable  cases  as  it  may  be  a  relevant  issue  for  

considering his bail application.  More so, withholding the integrity  

could not be the punishment and as the criminal case was sub judice  

before  the  competent  court  against  the  said  accused  on  the  

2

Page 3

chargesheet submitted by him, no action could be taken against the  

appellant unless the court comes to the conclusion that investigation  

was defective.  

D. The  disciplinary  authority,  i.e.  Senior  Superintendent  of  

Police without disclosing as under what circumstances not recording  

the past criminal  history of the accused involved in the case had  

prejudiced the cause  of  the prosecution in  a  bailable  offence and  

without taking into consideration the reply to the said show cause,  

found that  the  charge  framed against  the  appellant  stood  proved,  

reply submitted by the appellant  was held to be not   satisfactory.  

Therefore, the integrity certificate for the year 2010 was directed to  

be withheld vide impugned order dated 8.7.2010.  

E. Aggrieved,  the  appellant  preferred  an  appeal  before  the  

Deputy  Inspector  General  of  Police  on  20.8.2010  raising  all  the  

issues  including  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  find  out  the  past  

criminal  history  of  the  accused  in  bailable  offence  and  the  

punishment so imposed was not permissible under the U.P. Police  

Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,  

1991 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1991”).    The appeal stood  

rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 29.10.2010.   

F. Being aggrieved,  appellant preferred a revision before the  

Additional  Director  General  of  Police  which  was  dismissed  vide  

3

Page 4

order dated 29.3.2011 observing that withholding integrity certificate  

did not fall within the ambit of the Rules 1991. Therefore, the said  

revision  could  not  be  dealt  with  on  merit  and  thus  was  not  

maintainable.  

G. Aggrieved,   appellant  filed  a  Writ  Petition  which  was  

dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order  

dated 19.7.2011.  Hence, this appeal.   

4. Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant  

has raised all the issues which had been agitated persistently by the  

appellant in his show cause reply, grounds in appeal and revision and  

in the writ petition before the High Court and submitted that as the  

punishment  awarded  is  not  provided  under  the  Rules,  1991,  the  

punishment  so awarded is  without jurisdiction and is  liable  to  be  

quashed.  

5. On  the  contrary,  Shri  Arvind  Verma,  learned  counsel  

appearing  for  the  State  of  U.P.  made  an  attempt  to  defend  the  

impugned orders on the ground that the appellant did not conduct the  

investigation properly  and, therefore,  the order passed against him  

was justified and no interference was required.  

4

Page 5

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.   

7. The only question involved in this appeal is as to whether  the  

disciplinary  authority  can  impose  punishment  not  prescribed  

under statutory rules after holding disciplinary proceedings. The  

appellant is employed in the U.P. Police and his service so far as  

disciplinary  matters  are  concerned,  is  governed  by  the  Rules  

1991.   Rule 4 thereof provides the major penalties and minor  

penalties and it reads as under:-

“1. Punishment – (1) The following punishments may, for  

good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be  

imposed upon a Police Officer, namely -   

a. Major Penalties –

i. Dismissal from service.

ii. Removal from service.

iii. Reduction  in  rank including reduction  to  a  lower-

scale or to a lower stage in a time scale.  

b. Minor Penalties –

i. Withholding of promotion.

ii. Fine not exceeding one month’s pay.

iii. Withholding of increment, including stoppage at an  

efficiency bar.

iv. Censure.

5

Page 6

(2) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rule  

(1)  Head  Constables  and  Constables  may  also  be  

inflicted with the following punishments –

(i) Confinement  to  quarters  (this  term  includes  

confinement  to  Quarter  Guard  for  a  term not  

exceeding  fifteen  days  extra  guard  or  other  

duty).

(ii) Punishment Drill not exceeding fifteen days.

(iii) Extra guard duty not exceeding seven days.

(iv) Deprivation of good-conduct pay.

(3) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rules  

(1)  and  (2)  Constables  may  also  be  punished  with  

Fatigue duty, which shall be restricted to the following  

tasks:

(i) Tent pitching.

(ii) Drain digging.

(iii) Cutting  grass,  cleaning  jungle  and  picking  

stones from parade grounds.

(iv) Repairing huts and butts and similar work in the  

lines.

(v) Cleaning arms.

8. Admittedly, the punishment imposed upon the appellant is  

not provided  for under Rule 4 of Rules 1991. Integrity of a person  

can be withheld for sufficient reasons at the time of filling up the  

Annual  Confidential  Report.  However,  if  the  statutory  rules  so  

prescribe it can also be withheld as a punishment.  The order passed  

6

Page 7

by the Disciplinary Authority withholding the integrity certificate as  

a  punishment  for  delinquency  is  without  jurisdiction,  not  being  

provided under the Rules 1991, since the same could not be termed  

as  punishment  under  the  Rules.  The  rules  do  not  empower  the  

Disciplinary  Authority  to  impose  “any  other”  major  or  minor  

punishment.  It is a settled proposition of law that punishment not  

prescribed under  the rules,  as  a  result  of  disciplinary proceedings  

cannot be awarded.   

9. This  Court  in  State  of  U.P.  & Ors.  v.  Madhav Prasad  

Sharma, (2011) 2 SCC 212,  dealt with the aforesaid Rules 1991  

and  after quoting Rule 4 thereof  held as under:  

“16. We are not  concerned about  other rule.  The   perusal of major and minor penalties prescribed in   the above Rule makes it clear that sanctioning leave   without  pay  is not  one  of  the  punishments   prescribed, though, and under what circumstances   leave has been sanctioned without pay is a different   aspect  with  which  we  are  not  concerned  for  the   present.  However,  Rule  4  makes  it  clear  that   sanction  of  leave  without  pay  is  not  one  of  the   punishments  prescribed.  Disciplinary authority  is   competent  to  impose  appropriate  penalty  from   those provided in Rule 4 of the Rules which deals   with  the  major  penalties  and  minor  penalties.  Denial of salary on the ground of “no work no pay”   cannot be treated as a penalty in view of statutory   provisions contained in Rule 4 defining the penalties   in clear terms.”                              (Emphasis added)

7

Page 8

10. The Authority has to act or purport to act in pursuance or  

execution or intended execution of the Statute or Statutory Rules.  

(See:  The  Poona  City  Municipal  Corporation  v.  Dattatraya  

Nagesh Deodhar, AIR 1965 SC 555; The Municipal Corporation,  

Indore  v.  Niyamatulla  (dead)  by  his  Legal  representatives,  AIR  

1971 SC 97;  J.N. Ganatra  v.  Morvi Municipality, Morvi, AIR  

1996 SC 2520; and Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Employees Union v.  

D.D. Bambode & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 378).  

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 &  

Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395; Union of India v. H.C. Goel,  AIR 1964  

SC 364;  Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 10  

SCC  539;  and  Chairman-cum-Managing  Director,  Coal  India  

Ltd. & Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors., (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  

8

Page 9

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.   

12. This very ground has been taken by the appellant from the  

very initial stage.  Before the appellate authority such a ground was  

taken. Unfortunately, the appellate authority brushed aside the said  

submission observing that the judgments mentioned by him to the  

effect  that  integrity  could  not  be  withheld  as  punishment  not  

prescribed under the statutory rules, had no application to the case,  

and therefore, in that respect no further consideration was necessary.  

The order of punishment imposed by the  disciplinary authority did  

not require any interference.  The revisional authority rejected the  

revision as not maintainable observing as under:

“Representation  is  not  maintainable.  Withholding  of  integrity  certificate  does  not  come  under   punishment  under  1991  Rules….Therefore,  the  revision is returned without hearing on merit on the   ground of non maintainability.”                                                        (Emphasis added)

13. We fail to understand,  if the revisional authority was of the  

view that integrity could not be withheld as punishment,  why the  

9

Page 10

mistake committed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the  

appellate authority could not be rectified by him. This shows a total  

non-application of mind.  In such a fact-situation,  the subordinate  

officer has to face the adverse consequences without any fault on his  

part. The grievance raised by the appellant that recording the past  

criminal history of an accused is relevant in non-bailable offences  

only as it may be a relevant factor to be considered at the time of  

grant of bail, and he did not record the same as it was a bailable  

offence,  has  not  been considered by any of  the authorities  at  all.  

Undoubtedly, the statutory authorities  are under the legal obligation  

to decide the appeal and revision dealing with the grounds taken in  

the  appeal/revision  etc.,  otherwise  it  would  be  a  case  of  non-  

application of mind.  

14. The present case shows dealing with the most serious issues  

without any seriousness and sincerity.  Integrity means soundness of  

moral  principle  or  character,  fidelity,  honesty,  free  from  every  

biasing  or  corrupting  influence  or  motive  and  a  character  of  

uncorrupted  virtue.  It  is  synonymous  with  probity,  purity,  

uprightness  rectitude,  sinlessness  and  sincerity.   The  charge  of  

negligence, inadvertence or unintentional acts would not culminate  

into the case of doubtful integrity.  

1

Page 11

Withholding integrity   merely does not cause stigma, rather  

makes the person liable to face very serious consequences.  (Vide:  

Pyare Mohan Lal  v.  State of Jharkhand & Ors., AIR 2010 SC  

3753).  

15. Unfortunately,  a  too  trivial  matter  had  been  dragged  

unproportionately  which  has  caused  so  much  problems  to  the  

appellant.   There is  nothing on record to show as to whether the  

alleged delinquency would fall within the ambit of misconduct for  

which disciplinary proceedings could be initiated.  It is settled legal  

proposition that the vagaries of the employer to say  ex post facto  

that  some  acts  of  omission  or  commission  nowhere  found  to  be  

enumerated in the relevant rules is nonetheless a misconduct  (See:  

M/s.  Glaxo Laboratories (I)  Ltd. v.  Presiding Officer,  Labour  

Court, Meerut & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 505; and A.L. Kalra v. The  

Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC  

1361).  

16. Undoubtedly, in a civilized society governed by rule of law,  

the punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules cannot be  

imposed.   Principle  enshrined  in  Criminal  Jurisprudence  to  this  

effect is prescribed in legal maxim nulla poena sine  lege which  

1

Page 12

means that a person should not be made to suffer penalty except for  

a clear breach of existing law. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal &  

Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3196, this Court has held that a person cannot be  

tried  for  an  alleged  offence  unless  the  Legislature  has  made  it  

punishable by law and it falls within the offence as defined under  

Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 2(n)  

of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, or Section 3(38) of the General  

Clauses Act, 1897.  The same analogy can be drawn in the instant  

case though the matter is not criminal in nature.  

Thus,  in  view of  the  above,  the  punishment  order  is  not  

maintainable in the eyes of law.

17. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed.  The impugned  

order  dated 8.7.2010 withholding integrity  certificate  for  the year  

2010  and  all  subsequent  orders  in  this  regard  are  quashed.  

Respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for all  

consequential benefits including promotion etc., if any, afresh taking  

into consideration the service record of the appellant in accordance  

with law.  

....................................................J.  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

      …….……………………………J.

  (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR) New Delhi,  April 13, 2012

1

Page 131