S.C. Chaurasia, J.— Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally at the admission stage. The claimant/opposite party no. 1 filed the claim petition against the impugned order of punishment, by which, the Disciplinary Authority had withheld the integrity of the claimant/opposite party no. 1. The claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority can award only those punishments which have been provided under the service rules. Admittedly, under service rules, the punishment of withholding of integrity has not been mentioned as the instance of punishment. The learned Tribunal had relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 922, State Bank of India Vs. T.J. Pal. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also relied upon the judgment reported in [2012(2) ESC 206 (SC)], Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that integrity cannot be withheld by the Disciplinary Authority, it can be done only by competent authority who makes entry in the annual confidential report. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is cryptic in nature and unreasoned order. The impugned order passed by learned Tribunal does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. Hence call for no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly. _