Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (1.99 seconds)
Documents citing Daya Shankar vs High Court Of Allahabad And Ors. Through ... on 8 May, 1987

Karanam Chiranjeevulu vs The High Court Of Judicature At ... on 12 May, 2023

"6. The behaviour of a Judge has to be of an exacting standard, both inside and outside the court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad [Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3 SCC 1 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 132] held thus: (SCC p. 1) "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."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Muzaffar Husain vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 May, 2022

6. The behaviour of a Judge has to be of an exacting standard, both inside and outside the court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad [Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3 SCC 1 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 132] held thus: (SCC pp. 4-5, para 11) ‘11. … Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the 14 (2020) 11 SCC 760 11 court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy.’
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Sadhna Chaudhary vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 March, 2020

6. The behaviour of a Judge has to be of an exacting standard, both inside and outside the court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad [Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3 SCC 1:1987 SCC (L&S) 132] held thus: (SCC p.1) “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.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Huzbar Uddin Khan Son Of Sri Riyazuddin ... vs Director General Of Police, Inspector ... on 11 July, 2006

16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court had issued notice to the respondents to file counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed and the respondents wanted to justify the punishment which has been awarded against the petitioner that in the preliminary enquiry, the charges against the petitioner have been proved and after departmental enquiry, according to Rule 14(1) as the charges against the petitioner was proved, the services have been dispensed with. As the petitioner has promised one Km. Rana Rais when he was posted in 1991 as Sub Inspector and there were certain letters and photos, which clearly proves the misconduct against the petitioner. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the allegation against the petitioner regarding taking the statement prior to one day before the date fixed, it has been stated that the date was fixed for 23.7.2001 but Km. Rana Rais appeared on 22.7.2001. The petitioner was searched but he was not available, therefore, the statement of Km. Rana Rais was taken on 22.7.2001. It has further been stated in Para 18 of the counter affidavit that as the charge against the petitioner that he has adduced Km. Rana Rais by non fulfilling the promise and he has deceived the lady and he maintain the relationship of love affair with that lady is in violation of Sub Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules. Reliance has been placed upon Daya Shanker v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors. and reliance has been placed upon para 11 of the writ petition. The same is being quoted below:
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - S Kumar - Full Document

Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes ... vs Aditya Pratap Bhanj Dev And Ors. on 2 November, 2001

In DAYA SHANKAR v. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, , a District Munsif was found copying while appearing for LL.M. examination. After conducting enquiry, the High Court of Allahabad recommended to the State Government to remove the petitioner from service. Accordingly, the State Government removed the petitioner from service as District Munsif. The same was challenged in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court while dismissing the writ petition observed as under:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 128 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next