Surendra Nath Pandey vs State Of U.P.& Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 491 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 24
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36900 of 2000
 
Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3rd April, 2000 passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the subordinate authorities withholding his integrity has been upheld.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision in Rule 4 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 for awarding punishment by withholding integrity and, as such, the order of punishment as upheld by the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2000 is wholly without authority of law. In support of his submissions he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Writ A No. 32261 of 2011, Surendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others dated 23rd September, 2013.

Learned standing counsel submits that the petitioner was habitual of committing mistakes and, therefore, after due inquriy and after affording him opportunity, he was lawfully punished by withholding his integrity.

I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioner was Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial)/ Assistant Accountant in 4th Batalian, P.A.C., Allahabad. A show cause notice dated 23.7.1999 was issued to him for punishing him by withholding his integrity for the year 1998 on the ground that he has not recorded factual aspects in his noting on the provident fund advance application of Constable Vijay Shankar pandey. The petitioner submitted reply dated 12.8.1999 through Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad. His explanation was not accepted and an order dated 10th September, 1999 was passed by the Commandant, 4th Battalion, P.A.C., Allahabad withholding his integrity.

Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 22 (i) of the U.P. Police Officer of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) before the D.I.G., P.A.C. Kanpur, U.P. Kanpur through proper channel which was dismissed by order dated 5th February, 2000. Against this order the petitioner filed a revision before the next higher authority under Rule 23 of the Rules which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2000. Aggrieved with this order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

In paragraph No.4 of the impugned order it is stated that for the irregularities committed by the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued to him by the competent authority and charges levelled against him were found proved.

It is undisputed that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the aforesaid Rules, 1991. Rule 4 of the Rules 1991 provides for major penalties as well as minor penalties which may be imposed upon a police officer for good and sufficient reasons. Rule 4 of the Rules 1991 does not provide for penalty by way of withholding integrity. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2000 awarding punishment of withholding integrity, is wholly without authority of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained.

In the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others J.T. 2012 (4) SC 105 in para 11 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"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 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."

In Writ Petition No. 32261 of 2011 Surender Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others dated 23rd September, 2013 held in paragraph No.8 as under:

"8. Similar issue, i.e., with regard to imposition of punishment of withholding of integrity in respect of police officers of subordinate rank, has been considered earlier also by this Court and such orders of punishment have been set aside holding that punishment, not prescribed in Rules, cannot be imposed. These judgements are in Writ Petition No. 49071 of 2012, Abdul Kadir Khan and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 22.03.2012 (by Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.); Writ Petition No. 25665 of 2012, Narendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.05.2012 (by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.); Writ Petition No. 58153 of 2006, Surendra Nath Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 06.09.2012 (by Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.); Writ Petition No. 58154 of 2006, Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 21.12.2012 (by Hon'ble Sunil Hali, J.); Writ Petition No. 7190 (SS) of 2011, Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 17.01.2013 (by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.); Writ Petition No. 52328 of 2011, Abdul Qadir Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.01.2013 (by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.); Writ Petition No. 1386 of 2008, Phool Chandra Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 04.03.2013 (by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.); Writ Petition No. 34465 of 2012, Akhilesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 26.07.2013 (by Myself); and, Raj Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) ADJ 80 (by Myself). Besides above, a Division Bench of this Court has also expressed same view in Writ Petition No. 1315 (SB) of 2003, Satya Deo Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 02.04.2010 (by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. and Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.)."

Thus imposition of punishment of withholding of integrity in respect of a police officer of subordinate rank, is without authority of law since such punishment is not provided in Rule 4 of the Rules 1991. 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. 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 punishment of withholding integrity awarded to the petitioner and upheld by the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2000 being outside the purview of Rule 4 of the Rules 1991, is a nullity. Consequently the impugned order is set aside.

In result the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However there shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 14.5.2015

MT**