Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 13th July, 2025, whereby he has been imposed with the punishment order denying him the claim of salary for the period running from 21st July, 2020 till 24th November, 2020 counting to 125 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments: (a) Firstly, there is no such punishment prescribed either under the head of minor penalty or under the head of major penalty as prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991; and (b) Secondly, punishment in the nature of withholding salary of the petitioner for the period of 125 days is a result of alleged charge of absence from duty which amounted to misconduct and yet without following the procedure prescribed under the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 in a sense that no inquiry as such was held and merely petitioner was issued with a show cause notice renders such punishment unsustainable.

4. Upon a pointed query being made, learned Standing counsel could not demonstrate from the order impugned dated 13th July, 2025 as to whether any inquiry was held in the matter. Learned Standing Counsel also could not demonstrate from the relevant Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 which prescribed for different nature of punishment under the heading of minor punishment as well as major punishment which would also include the punishment in the nature of denial of salary for a certain period.

5. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, I reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 prescribed for minor and major punishment: "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. (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 bare reading of the aforesaid provisions it clearly transpires that there is no such punishment prescribed for entitling and empowering the disciplinary authority to withhold salary of an employee for the period for which petitioner was alleged to have remained absent.

7. In the considered view of the Court, any order that denies salary to the employee of the establishment has an adverse civil consequences and hence this can be done only by adopting the procedure prescribed for under the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991. If the petitioner had remained absent for 125 days then charge should have been framed to the effect that it amounted to misconduct and accordingly, proceedings should have been drawn and it is in that process that petitioner would have got opportunity to offer this explanation and participation in the duly conducted inquiry. All these procedures having not been followed and Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 having not provided any other procedure by which on a mere issuance of show cause notice a punishment in the nature could have been imposed.

8. I also find the order impugned dated 13th July, 2025 to be bad for want of lawful authority for there being no such punishment prescribed.

9. Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others (2012) 5 SCC 242 has very categorically held that when the punishment is not prescribed under the relevant Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 then disciplinary authority is not empowered to impose such a punishment.

10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents could not place before the Court any other judgement to the contrary.

11. In the given facts and circumstances, when the facts are admitted to the respondents that no disciplinary proceeding was held as such, I do not consider it appropriate to call for a written reply in the form of an affidavit from the State respondents as no amount of affidavit can improve the order impugned.

12. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13th July, 2015 passed by the Police Commissioner Prayagraj directing for denial of salary to the petitioner for the period running from 21st July, 2022 till 24th November, 2020 i.e. for a period of 125 days is hereby quashed with all consequential benefits.

13. However, liberty rests with the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and as per the relevant punishment and appeal rules, 1991. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 13th July, 2025, whereby he has been imposed with the punishment order denying him the claim of salary for the period running from 21st July, 2020 till 24th November, 2020 counting to 125 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments: (a) Firstly, there is no such punishment prescribed either under the head of minor penalty or under the head of major penalty as prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991; and (b) Secondly, punishment in the nature of withholding salary of the petitioner for the period of 125 days is a result of alleged charge of absence from duty which amounted to misconduct and yet without following the procedure prescribed under the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 in a sense that no inquiry as such was held and merely petitioner was issued with a show cause notice renders such punishment unsustainable.

4. Upon a pointed query being made, learned Standing counsel could not demonstrate from the order impugned dated 13th July, 2025 as to whether any inquiry was held in the matter. Learned Standing Counsel also could not demonstrate from the relevant Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 which prescribed for different nature of punishment under the heading of minor punishment as well as major punishment which would also include the punishment in the nature of denial of salary for a certain period.

5. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, I reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 prescribed for minor and major punishment: "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. (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 bare reading of the aforesaid provisions it clearly transpires that there is no such punishment prescribed for entitling and empowering the disciplinary authority to withhold salary of an employee for the period for which petitioner was alleged to have remained absent.

7. In the considered view of the Court, any order that denies salary to the employee of the establishment has an adverse civil consequences and hence this can be done only by adopting the procedure prescribed for under the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991. If the petitioner had remained absent for 125 days then charge should have been framed to the effect that it amounted to misconduct and accordingly, proceedings should have been drawn and it is in that process that petitioner would have got opportunity to offer this explanation and participation in the duly conducted inquiry. All these procedures having not been followed and Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 having not provided any other procedure by which on a mere issuance of show cause notice a punishment in the nature could have been imposed.

8. I also find the order impugned dated 13th July, 2025 to be bad for want of lawful authority for there being no such punishment prescribed.

9. Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others (2012) 5 SCC 242 has very categorically held that when the punishment is not prescribed under the relevant Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 then disciplinary authority is not empowered to impose such a punishment.

10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents could not place before the Court any other judgement to the contrary.

11. In the given facts and circumstances, when the facts are admitted to the respondents that no disciplinary proceeding was held as such, I do not consider it appropriate to call for a written reply in the form of an affidavit from the State respondents as no amount of affidavit can improve the order impugned.

12. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13th July, 2015 passed by the Police Commissioner Prayagraj directing for denial of salary to the petitioner for the period running from 21st July, 2022 till 24th November, 2020 i.e. for a period of 125 days is hereby quashed with all consequential benefits.

13. However, liberty rests with the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and as per the relevant punishment and appeal rules, 1991. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad