High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, whereby his integrity certificate has been withheld.

3. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that withholding the integrity certificate does not come within the definition of minor and major penalty given under the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. It is contended that once disciplinary authority itself has held in the order impugned that withholding of integrity does not fall within the category of punishment under the Rules, 1991, he was not justified to withhold the same. It is argued that the disciplinary authority can take an action against the charged officer on the basis of finding returned in the enquiry report by imposing such penalties which are mentioned and prescribed under the relevant Rules, 1991. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the appellate authority as well as the authority sitting in revision have failed to appreciate the same.

4. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, he has relied the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & 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. & 2 Others decided on 26.08.2021, wherein, the Court has quashed the order of withholding integrity by the authority in respect of police constable only on the ground that this punishment having not been prescribed under the Rules, 1991, the same could not have been imposed. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: 2 WRIA No. 11698 of 2025 "11. In administrative matters an employee is supposed to be watched by superior officers regularly and his work and performance is annually assessed and put on record by superior officers every year, which process, normally is called as recording of Annual Character Roll or Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACR'). The normal hierarchy for recording of ACR at initial level is the just superior officer termed as "Reporting Officer", who assess the work and performance of officer concerned and the aforesaid assessment recorded by "Reporting Officer" is subject to acceptance and review by "Accepting Authority", who is the next in hierarchy to the "Reporting Officer" and then to the another next officer in hierarchy called Reviewing Officer. In a very few matters the process of recording of ACR is two tier level consists of Reporting Officer and Accepting Officer. Besides, other traits, certification of integrity is one of the part, integrally connected, with the assessment of work, performance and conduct of officer concerned and, therefore, it is a regular feature of ACR. This aspect is fortified from the various Government orders referred to in the counter affidavit as noticed above, copies whereof have been filed collectively as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit.

12. The Government Order dated 28.12.1959 would clearly demonstrate that initial certification of integrity has to be made by "Reporting Officer". The guidelines have been laid down in para 2 for the benefit of Reporting Officer as to how he should deal with the matter of certification of integrity of subordinate officers in respect of whose work and performance he has to record ACR. The consequence of non-certification of integrity or withholding of integrity is provided in para 5. It says that the officer concerned shall stand held up at the stage of crossing of efficiency bar or even his annual increment would stand deferred until he gets integrity certified again.

13. In the Government Order dated 07.10.1966 one of the important aspect stated in para 3 is that the certification of integrity when denied by Reporting Officer, such Government servant should be posted elsewhere and should not be continued under/with the same Reporting Officer.

14. The next Government Order dated 03.07.1979 clarify that withholding of integrity being part of ACR would relate back to the year for which it was to be certified and for different year it has to be dealt with separately, without being influenced by previous year.

15. The Government Order dated 15.12.1980 only gives few illustrations for the guidance of officers telling them the manner in which they should record their views regarding certification of integrity of a subordinate officer.

16. The Government Orders dated 16.05.1981 and 21.12.1993 only reiterate that in cases where conduct of Government servant is suspicious or under 3 WRIA No. 11698 of 2025 inquiry, it should be closely watched and in case of inquiry, this fact should be mentioned and certification of integrity should be deferred till inquiry is concluded.

17. These Government orders, therefore, only deal with the manner of certification/withholding of integrity in ACR but by no means upgrade "withholding of integrity" to the status or extent of punishment, minor or major, as the case may be. It leaves no doubt that whenever the question of punishment would arise as a result of disciplinary proceeding, the competent authority will have to look into and abide to the relevant rules prescribing punishment and cannot invent/ discover a new punishment by itself which has not been prescribed in the statute by rule framing authority. The reference to aforesaid Government orders, therefore, in the context of present case, is wholly misconceived and it appears that either the respondents do not understand the nature of certification of integrity or have no idea of difference between a punishment and recording of ACR. The defence taken by respondents, therefore, is wholly out of context and does not them.

18. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.03.2011 is hereby quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the disciplinary authority from passing any fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21 October 2019 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs." (emphasis added)

5. Upon perusal of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 only following punishment has been prescribed as major punishment and minor punishment. The rules are reproduced hereunder: "4. PUNISHMENT - (1) The following punishments may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon Police Officer, namely -- a) Major Penalties --- (i) Dismissal from service. (ii) Removal from service. 4 WRIA No. 11698 of 2025 (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 months pay. (iii) Withholding of increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iv) Censure. (2) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rule (1) Head Constable 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."

6. Upon a query made as to how the order impugned passed by the 5 WRIA No. 11698 of 2025 disciplinary authority can be justified, learned Standing Counsel submits that the competent disciplinary authority can be directed to pass order afresh in the light of law laid down by this Court and the relevant Service Rules.

7. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the above legal position.

8. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 10.03.2025 is quashed. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 IrfanUddin IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, whereby his integrity certificate has been withheld.

3. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that withholding the integrity certificate does not come within the definition of minor and major penalty given under the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. It is contended that once disciplinary authority itself has held in the order impugned that withholding of integrity does not fall within the category of punishment under the Rules, 1991, he was not justified to withhold the same. It is argued that the disciplinary authority can take an action against the charged officer on the basis of finding returned in the enquiry report by imposing such penalties which are mentioned and prescribed under the relevant Rules, 1991. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the appellate authority as well as the authority sitting in revision have failed to appreciate the same.

4. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, he has relied the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & 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. & 2 Others decided on 26.08.2021, wherein, the Court has quashed the order of withholding integrity by the authority in respect of police constable only on the ground that this punishment having not been prescribed under the Rules, 1991, the same could not have been imposed. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: 2 WRIA No. 11698 of 2025 "11. In administrative matters an employee is supposed to be watched by superior officers regularly and his work and performance is annually assessed and put on record by superior officers every year, which process, normally is called as recording of Annual Character Roll or Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACR'). The normal hierarchy for recording of ACR at initial level is the just superior officer termed as "Reporting Officer", who assess the work and performance of officer concerned and the aforesaid assessment recorded by "Reporting Officer" is subject to acceptance and review by "Accepting Authority", who is the next in hierarchy to the "Reporting Officer" and then to the another next officer in hierarchy called Reviewing Officer. In a very few matters the process of recording of ACR is two tier level consists of Reporting Officer and Accepting Officer. Besides, other traits, certification of integrity is one of the part, integrally connected, with the assessment of work, performance and conduct of officer concerned and, therefore, it is a regular feature of ACR. This aspect is fortified from the various Government orders referred to in the counter affidavit as noticed above, copies whereof have been filed collectively as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit.

12. The Government Order dated 28.12.1959 would clearly demonstrate that initial certification of integrity has to be made by "Reporting Officer". The guidelines have been laid down in para 2 for the benefit of Reporting Officer as to how he should deal with the matter of certification of integrity of subordinate officers in respect of whose work and performance he has to record ACR. The consequence of non-certification of integrity or withholding of integrity is provided in para 5. It says that the officer concerned shall stand held up at the stage of crossing of efficiency bar or even his annual increment would stand deferred until he gets integrity certified again.

13. In the Government Order dated 07.10.1966 one of the important aspect stated in para 3 is that the certification of integrity when denied by Reporting Officer, such Government servant should be posted elsewhere and should not be continued under/with the same Reporting Officer.

14. The next Government Order dated 03.07.1979 clarify that withholding of integrity being part of ACR would relate back to the year for which it was to be certified and for different year it has to be dealt with separately, without being influenced by previous year.

15. The Government Order dated 15.12.1980 only gives few illustrations for the guidance of officers telling them the manner in which they should record their views regarding certification of integrity of a subordinate officer.

16. The Government Orders dated 16.05.1981 and 21.12.1993 only reiterate that in cases where conduct of Government servant is suspicious or under 3 WRIA No. 11698 of 2025 inquiry, it should be closely watched and in case of inquiry, this fact should be mentioned and certification of integrity should be deferred till inquiry is concluded.

17. These Government orders, therefore, only deal with the manner of certification/withholding of integrity in ACR but by no means upgrade "withholding of integrity" to the status or extent of punishment, minor or major, as the case may be. It leaves no doubt that whenever the question of punishment would arise as a result of disciplinary proceeding, the competent authority will have to look into and abide to the relevant rules prescribing punishment and cannot invent/ discover a new punishment by itself which has not been prescribed in the statute by rule framing authority. The reference to aforesaid Government orders, therefore, in the context of present case, is wholly misconceived and it appears that either the respondents do not understand the nature of certification of integrity or have no idea of difference between a punishment and recording of ACR. The defence taken by respondents, therefore, is wholly out of context and does not them.

18. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.03.2011 is hereby quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the disciplinary authority from passing any fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21 October 2019 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs." (emphasis added)

5. Upon perusal of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 only following punishment has been prescribed as major punishment and minor punishment. The rules are reproduced hereunder: "4. PUNISHMENT - (1) The following punishments may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon Police Officer, namely -- a) Major Penalties --- (i) Dismissal from service. (ii) Removal from service. 4 WRIA No. 11698 of 2025 (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 months pay. (iii) Withholding of increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iv) Censure. (2) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rule (1) Head Constable 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."

6. Upon a query made as to how the order impugned passed by the 5 WRIA No. 11698 of 2025 disciplinary authority can be justified, learned Standing Counsel submits that the competent disciplinary authority can be directed to pass order afresh in the light of law laid down by this Court and the relevant Service Rules.

7. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the above legal position.

8. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 10.03.2025 is quashed. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 IrfanUddin IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad