Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"57. In this case, sufferance of prejudice has been vehemently argued. That prejudice is that the petitioners are blacklisted and debarred from appearing and hence, will not be public servants in future. Sufferance is not shown to be based upon any act of the MPSC by which, their innocence, hitherto concealed, could have been otherwise brought out. Every candidate who follows dubious means must suffer his fate by punishment. That is not sufferance of prejudice. The entire concept is completely misconceived. Sufferance of prejudice essentially requires the petitioners to show the evidence which, if seen by the departmental authority, would have proved their innocence. The specimen handwriting in this case shows otherwise. It has seen that the petitioners' specimen handwritings have, in fact, sealed their fate. They have got the punishment they deserved upon the evidence being considered. The punishment is not prejudice. The Supreme Court has laid down the test of prejudice suffered by a party by non-compliance of rules of natural justice as the only reason to merit interference by Courts. No prejudice suffered is shown in this case. No interference is merited. 
                 xxx            xxx              xxx


                                     // 23 //
78. The petitioners do not deserve to be public officers. The petitioners have indulged in malpractice. They have colluded with the other public officers of the same hue and colour. The least punishment that can be meted out upon the petitioners is to keep them away from public service. The MPSC has been more than fair. The MPSC has acted upon anonymous complaints. It has conducted a preliminary enquiry. It has removed the chaff from the grain. It has issued notices only upon the candidates who have been found to be tainted. It has not held back the results of those who did not indulge in any malpractice. It has issued not one, but three notices upon the petitioners until now. It has considered not one, but three replies of the petitioners. It has passed a reasoned order as directed. The order shows how the original answer sheets have been changed at the instance of the petitioners and for their own benefit; that the marks have been increased; that there is a difference in the handwriting in the answer sheets and the samples of their handwritings; that the petitioners have acted in collusion with certain officers mentioned therein; that the petitioners have admitted the payment of illegal gratification. The order further shows not only the act of the answer sheets having been changed but the intention of the petitioners behind the act and the benefit they sought to derive therefrom and the consequent presumption which follows as "a common course of natural events and human conduct" by "applying a process of intelligent reasoning of the mind of a prudent man under similar circumstances", as cited in the case of T. Shankar Prasad (supra)."