1987 (5) TMI 381 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal from service based on unfair means in examination, legality of removal order despite stay order.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition under Article 32 challenged the dismissal from service based on unfair means in an examination. The petitioner, a member of the U.P. State Judicial Service, was found using unfair means during an L.L.M. examination at Aligarh Muslim University. The High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings, leading to the petitioner's suspension and a subsequent inquiry conducted by an Inquiry Officer appointed by the High Court.

The Inquiry Officer framed a charge-sheet accusing the petitioner of using unfair means during the examination, which was corroborated by witness testimonies. The Full Court of the High Court accepted the Inquiry Officer's report, recommending the petitioner's removal from service to the State Government.

The petitioner, however, filed a suit denying the allegations without referencing the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. When the petitioner sought a transfer of the suit outside the state, the Supreme Court issued a stay order on further proceedings related to the examination malpractice inquiry.

The petitioner contended that the removal order was illegal due to the stay order issued by the Supreme Court. However, the court found that the removal was not in disobedience of the stay order as the inquiry had concluded before the stay order was issued.

The petitioner also argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove the use of unfair means during the examination. Despite the petitioner's defense, including an allegation of tampering with evidence by an invigilator, the court upheld the Inquiry Officer's conclusion based on the evidence presented, emphasizing the importance of integrity for judicial officers.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the Writ Petition and the Transfer Petition, upholding the validity of the removal order. The judgment highlighted the necessity for judicial officers to maintain integrity and upheld the decision based on the evidence presented during the inquiry.