LexVIJAY SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 875 VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3550 of 2012) APRIL 13, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] A B 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. 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; G 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.