Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is a Sub -Inspector in U.P. Police, has sought the quashing of the order dated 9th July, 2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh on the ground that the punishment of withholding of integrity is not contemplated under Rule 4 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').
(2.) IN this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Ors. v. T.J. Paul : JT 1999 (3) SC 385 and the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 71219 of 2005 Narendra Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 30th July, 2009. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that it is not necessary to file a counter affidavit and the petition may be disposed of at this stage.
(3.) IN T.J. Paul (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows: ...Here, the gradation of the punishments has been fixed by the rules themselves, namely, the rules of Bank of Cochin and the Court is merely insisting that the authority is confined to the limits of its discretion as restricted by the rules. Inasmuch as the rules of Bank of Cochin have enumerated and listed out the punishments for "major misconduct", we are of the view that the punishment of "removal" could not have been imposed by the appellate authority and all that was permissible for the Bank was to confine itself to one or the other punishment for major misconduct enumerated in para 22(v) of the rules, other than dismissal without notice....;