VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

594 DECISION - 282
Daya Shanker vs. High Court of Allahabad,
AIR 1987 SC 1467 : 1987 (2) SLR SC 717
The petitioner was a member of the U.P. State Judicial
Service. While working as Munsiff at Aligarh, he appeared for the
first semester examination of LLM, when he was found to have used
unfair means by copying from a manuscript lying between the answer
book and the question paper. He was placed under suspension and
dealt with in Disciplinary Proceedings and removed from service by
the Governor by order dated 17.06.1983.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the petitioner
that the invigilator had planted the manuscript when he had gone to
the toilet and caught him when he returned, as he did not oblige him
in a case in which he was interested. The Supreme Court found
verbatim reproduction of a portion from the manuscript, in the answer
sheets and the last sentence incomplete, indicating that he started
copying after he returned from the toilet. The Supreme Court further
observed: “The conduct of the petitioner is undoubtedly unworthy of
judicial officer. Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in
the Court and another outside the Court. They must have only one
standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even
remotely unworthy of the office they occupy”.
(282)
Inquiry Officer — appointment of
No illegality where mistake of appointing Inquiring
Officer before receiving the explanation on chargesheet
is rectified by competent authority by issue of
fresh order.
Prafulla Kumar Talukdar vs. Union of India,
1988(5) SLR CAT CAL 203
The applicant, an Office Superintendent in the Office of the