VIJAY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                    [2012] 2 S.C.R. 875


                       VIJAY SINGH                             A
                             v.
                   STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 3550 of 2012)
                      APRIL 13, 2012
                                                               B
 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,
                      JJ.]

      UTTAR PRADESH POLICE OFFICERS OF THE
SUBORDINATE RANKS (PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL) C
RULES, 1991: Withholding of integrity certificate - Integrity
certificate of police inspector withheld on the ground that he
did not investigate a criminal case properly - Held:
Punishment of withholding the integrity certificate is not
provided for under the Rules - Therefore, order by Disciplinary D
Authority withholding integrity certificate as a punishment for
delinquency was without jurisdiction.

     ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Administrative action - Held:
The Authority has to act or purport to act in pursuance or E
execution or intended execution of the Statute or Statutory
Rules - 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 F
- 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.
                                                                G
     The Poona City Municipal Corporation v. Dattatraya ·
Nagesh Deodhar AIR 1965 SC 555: 1964 SCR 178; The
Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Niyamatulla (dead) by his
Legal representatives AIR 1971 SC 97: 1970 (2) SCR 714;
                             875                                H
    876     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A J.N. Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality, Morvi AIR 1996 SC 2520:
    1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 742; Borosil Glass Works Ltd.
    Employees Union v. D.D. Bambode & Ors. AIR 2001SC378:
    2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 187; Bachhittar Singh v. State of
    Punjab & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 395: 1962 Suppl. SCR 713;
8   Union of India v. H. C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364: 1964 SCR
    718; Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of UP. & Ors. (2010) 10
    SCC 539: 2010 (12) SCR 448; Chairman-cum-Managing
    Director, Coal India Ltd. & Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors. (2011)
    5 sec 142: 2011 (5) SCR 44 - relied on.
c      REVISION: Plea taken by the delinquent employee from
  the w~ry initial stage that order passed by the Disciplinary
  Authority withholding the integrity certificate as a punishment
  for delinquency was without jurisdiction - Appellate authority
  brushed aside the said plea - Revisional authority rejected
D the revision as not maintainable - While holding so, it held
  that withholding of integrity certificate did not come under
  punishment under the Rules and therefore, revision was being ·
  returned without hearing on merit - Held: Since revisional
  authority was of the view that integrity could not be withheld
E as punishment, it erred in not rectifying the mistake committed
  by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate
  authority - This was a total non-application of mind.

       SERVICE LAW: Integrity - Held: Integrity means
F soundness of moral principle or character, fidelity, honesty,
  free from every bias or corrupting influence or motive and a
  character of uncorrupted virtue - The charge of negligence,
  inadvertence or unintentional acts would not culminate into
  the case of doubtful integrity - Withholding integrity merely
G does not cause stigma, rather makes the person liable to face
  very serious consequences.

       Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. AIR 2010
  SC 3753: 2010 (11) SCR 216; Mis. Glaxo Laboratories(/) Ltd.
  v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut & Ors. AIR 1984
H SC 505: 1984 (1) SCR 230; A.L. Katra v. The Project and
       VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.               877


  Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 1361: 1984    A
· (3) SCR 646 - relied on.

      CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE: Rule of law - Held: In a
civilized society governed by rule of law, the punishment not
prescribed under the statutory rules cannot be imposed - This   B
principle is prescribed in legal maxim nu/la poena sine /ege
which means that a person should not be made to suffer
penalty except for a clear breach of existing law.

     S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 3196:
 2010 (5) SCR 322 - relied on.                                  c
                     Case Law Reference:
     1964 SCR 178                relied on        Para 10
     1970 (2) SCR 714            relied on        Para 10       D
     1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 742 relied on            Para 10
     2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 187 relied on            Para 10
     1962 Suppl. SCR 713         relied on ·      Para 11
                                                                E
     1964 SCR 718                relied on        Para 11
     2010 (12) SCR 448           relied on        Para 11
     2011 (5) SCR 44             relied on        Para 11
                                                                F
     2010 (11) SCR 216           relied on        Para 14
     1984 (1) SCR 230            relied on        Para 15
     1984 (3) SCR 646            relied on        Para 15
     2010 (5) SCR 322            relied on        Para 16       G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3550 of 2012.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 19.07.2011 of the
                                                                H
     878      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A    Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 39609 of 2011.

          R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, M.K. Singh, Shekhar Kumar for
     the Appellant.

         Arvind Varma, Prateek Dwivedi, Gunnam Venkateswara
8    Rao, Deependra Narain Singh, Aditi Mohan for the
     Respondents.

           The following order of the Court was delivered

c.                               ORDER

           1. Leave granted.

       2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned
  judgment and order dated 19. 7.2011 passed by the High Court
o 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.
E 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
F    application of mind and then expect them to maintain complete
     discipline merely being members of the disciplined forces.

           The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:

G      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
H against the said accused.
        VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                     879


     B. During the pendency of the said case in court, a show           A
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                  B
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        C
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 chargesheet submitted by him, no action could            D
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               E
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        F
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         G
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
                                                                        H
    880      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 2 S.C.R


A   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
8
    vide 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.

C       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
0   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
E   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
F   passed against him was justified and no interference was
    required.

      · 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by
    learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
G        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
H
           VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                 881


governed by the Rules 1991. Rule 4 thereof provides the major        A
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 -
                                                                     B
    a.       Major Penalties -

     i.       Dismissal from service.

     ii.      Removal from service.
                                                                     c
     iii.     Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-
              scale or to a lower stage in a time scale.

    b.       Minor Penalties -
                                                                     D
     i.       Withholding of promotion.

     ii.      Fine not exceeding one month's pay.

     iii.     Withholding of increment, including stoppage at an
              efficiency bar.                                        E
     iv.      Censure.

     (2)      In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rule
              (1) Head Constables and Constables may also be
              inflicted with the following punishments -             F

              (i)     Confinement to quarters (this term includes
                      confinement to Quarter Guard for a term not
                      exceeding fifteen days extra guard or other
                      duty).                                         G

              (ii)    Punishment Drill not exceeding fifteen days.

              (iii)   Extra guard duty not exceeding seven days.

              (iv)    Deprivation of good-conduct pay.
                                                                     H
    882     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A         (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.
B
                 (ii)    Drain digging.

                 (iii)   Cutting grass, cleaning jungle and picking
                         stones from parade grounds.
c                (iv)    Repairing huts and butts and similar work in
                         the lines.

                 (v)     Cleaning arms.

o       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
E punishment. The order passed 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
F Disciplinary Authority to impose "any other" major or minor
   punishment. ft 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 UP. & Ors. v. Madhav Prasad
G 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
H         makes it clear that sanctioning leave without pay is not one
       VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                  883


    of the punishments prescribed, though, and under what           A
    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       s
    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."     c
    (Emphasis added)

     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                     D
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 Borosi/ Glass
Works Ltd. Employees Union v. D.D. Bambode & Ors., AIR
2001 SC 378).                                                       E

     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 F
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 & G
ors., (2011) 5 sec 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 lgnore the statutory rules under which punishment      H
    884      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 2 S.C.R.


A 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.
B
       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 fhat the
C 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
o 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
E         without hearing on merit on the ground of non
          maintainability."

                                                  (Emphasis added)

F       13. We fail to understand, if the revisional authority was of
  the view that integrity could not be withheld as punishment, why
  the 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,
G 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
H
        VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                   885


considered by any of the authorities at all. .Undoubtedly, the         A
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.
                                                                       B
     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,        C
purity, uprightness rectitude, sinlessness and sincerity. ·The
charge of negligence, inadvertence or unintentiona(acts would
not culminate into the case of doubtful integrity.

    Withholding integrity merely does not cause stigma, rather
makes the person liable to face very serious consequences.             D
(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             E
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
                                                                       F
found to be enumerated in the relevant rules is nonetheless a
misconduct (See: Mis. Glaxo Laboratories (/) Ltd. v. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Meerut & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 505; and
A.L. Katra v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India.
Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361).
                                                                       G
     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
                                                                       H
    886     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A poena sine lege which 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
B 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.
c       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
D 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.
E
    D.G.                                          Appeal allowed.