JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - Whether petitioner has committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 (1) of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (for short the Rules) and can he said to have committed a misconduct when he worked as Section Officer since 11.8.82 to 10.10.82 whereas the interview of Sri Mahesh Chand Bindal in respect of whose qualifications office report was supposed to have been submitted by the petitioner, was held on 23.8.82 immediately after the petitioner joined as Section Officer and the report about the sufficiency or otherwise of the qualification of Sri Bindal was already submitted by some other Section Officer and not by the petitioner, particularly when before the actual date of interview all the relevant papers were submitted and examined by some other Section Officer (other than the petitioner) and thereafter they were examined by Mr. S.J. Rizvi, Member of the Commission who found them in order, hence under such situation can the petitioner be held liable particularly when the report was submitted to the Government, short comings in Sri Bindal's educational qualifications were already pointed out by Sri Ram Dayal Sonkar, Upper Division Assistant on 7.9.82 and whether under these circumstances impugned order dated 30.10,85 (Annexure 10 to the petition) passed by the Chairman U.P. Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) dismissing the petitioner from service can be sustained, are the points for our consideration in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner with the prayer that the impugned order dated 30.10.85 may be quashed and the respondents may be commanded not to interfere with the petitioners continuance in the service. 2. The portrayal or essential facts are these. The petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1962 in the Commission and Since 23.4.75 petitioner was promoted as Section Officer and he was confirmed as such. In the year 1981 the Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Food and Drug Controller U.P. when the petitioner was working as Section Officer in the confidential section. On 11.8.82 he was transferred as Section Officer in Service 8 Section, the post from which the petitioners liability was presumed. The last date for acceptance of application forms in the Commission was 22.11.81. The applications were received and they were scrutinised before the petitioner was posted in that Section. Before that Mr. On 11.8.82 he was transferred as Section Officer in Service 8 Section, the post from which the petitioners liability was presumed. The last date for acceptance of application forms in the Commission was 22.11.81. The applications were received and they were scrutinised before the petitioner was posted in that Section. Before that Mr. S.H. Rizvi Member of the Commission who interviewed the candidates had also scrutinised all the applications of the candidates. On 7th April 1984 the petitioner was served with an office memo (Annexure 3 to petition) by the Joint Secretary to explain as to in what circumstances petitioner forwarded the drafts and notes dated 7.9.82 submitted by Mr. Sonkar without mentioning anything in regard to para 2 of the draft. The petitioner pryed for extension of time as only 2 days time was allowed till 9th April 1984 but by an order dated 23,4.84 (Annexure 4 to the petition) he was placed under suspension and was served with a chargesheet dated 5.7.84 (Annexure 5 to the petition). 3. In the charge sheet main charges were that the petitioner was posted as Section Officer in Service 8 Section from 11.8.82 to 10.10.82 and during this period the proceedings for selection by direct recruitment to the post of Food and Drug Controller U.P. were held and interview was held on 23.8.82 the recommendation regarding selection was made at page 40 of File No. 143/S 8/81 - 82 and that the petitioner put up note and draft page 41 - 42 of the file for sending the recommendation of the Commission to the Government. Under para 2 of the draft it was noted by Sri R.D. Sonkar Upper Division Assistant (in Hindi) that the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the candidature of Mr. Bindal was provisional as Sri Bindal has not submitted the certificate of having 5 years experience in Drug Standardisation and Drug Controlling, Drug manufacturing and Drug testing from a well reputed institution and it was indicated that the Government can issue appointment letter only after being satisfied provided the candidate already selected does not join the post (as there was only one vacancy) vide para 12 of the petition). 4. 4. It was stated in charge that the petitioner must have examined the facts stated in the notes and drafts about the period of experience claimed by Sri Bindal in case it was not verified from the particulars furnished by him and as he did not fulfil 5 years experience the petitioner must have brought this fact to the notice of Commission and got his candidature cancelled earlier but the petitioner did not do so and put the burden on the Government vide letter dated 8.9.82 (No. 8/74/143/81 - 82). The Government vide letter dated 5.12.82 sent particulars regarding the experience of Sri Bindal to the Commission and requested the Commission to send its recommendation for appointment of Sri Bindal. Again petitioner in para 5 of his note only stated that from the particulars sent by the Government it was not clear as to whether Sri Bindal possessed requisite experience. It was for the petitioner to have brought this fact to the notice of the Commission and he must have seen that the provisional recommendation was cancelled. It was stated further that on account of this deriliction of duty on the part of the petitioner High Court in writ petition No. 2155 of 1983 (Sadhan Kumar Majumdar v. State of U.P.) passed an order that the Commission should take its own decision in the matter of experience of Sri Bindal as claimed by him and the Commission in compliance of the said order of Hon'ble High Court by its decision dated 19.4.84 cancelled the candidature of Shri Bindal but by that time Sri Bindal had already joined. This could have been avoided provided the petitioner could get his candidature cancelled earlier. It was thus alleged that the petitioner was guilty of gross deriliction of duty on account of which a disqualified candidate got himself appointed and the petitioner was guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 (1) of U.P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1956. This could have been avoided provided the petitioner could get his candidature cancelled earlier. It was thus alleged that the petitioner was guilty of gross deriliction of duty on account of which a disqualified candidate got himself appointed and the petitioner was guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 (1) of U.P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1956. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply (Annexure 6 to the petition) to the charge sheet and the categorically stated that the charge against him was false and incorrect in as much as in such type of selection the procedure for preliminary scrutiny was adopted and the particulars given in the application form are compared and examined with the certificates attached with the application to ascertain as to whether the candidate possessed the requisite qualification and experience as mentioned in the advertisement. Only such candidates are called for interview who possessed minimum qualification. For the aforesaid post 24 candidates applied in all and even the scrutiny of the application forms was done by some other Section Officer the then incharge as by that date the petitioner was not posted in that Section. Only 10 candidates were to be called for interview and application forms of 14 candidates were rejected. After scrutiny in the officer the application forms were also placed before Mr. Rizvi Member of the Commission and incharge for such purposes who also scrutinised. The Commission recommended Mr. Bindal provisionally as he has not submitted certificate of 5 years experience. There was no direction from the Commission that while sending the recommendation to the Government, the Section Officer (petitioner) shall re - examine the candidature of the recommended candidates. 5. In view of decision of Commission dated 24.10.80 the recommendation of the Commission should be sent to the Government within 3 days and in case of provisional recommendations the candidates should be asked to produce the relevant certificate, as the selection of Sri Bindal was provisional and note to that effect was sent by Sri Sonkar, Upper Division Assistant, the petitioner was not guilty of charges nor of misconduct. In view of the said decision of the Commission dated. 24.10.80 it was not necessary to seek any further order of Commission before sending provisional recommendation to the Government. In view of the said decision of the Commission dated. 24.10.80 it was not necessary to seek any further order of Commission before sending provisional recommendation to the Government. In fact as this much was indicated in the note of Sri Sonkar, it was for the Government to make further enquiry and to ascertain whether the condition of 5 years experience was fulfilled by Sri Bindal, before directing Commission to consider his candidature again for the appointment. There was thus no negligence on the part of the petitioner. In fact when the papers were sent after recommendation of the Commission along with the note put up by Sri Sonkar, the Government vide letter dated 5.12.82 requested the Commission to reconsider, the matter of appointment of Sri Ram Chandra Singh, whose name was recommended in the main select list and in this letter the Government had itself recommended that since Shri Bindal possessed the requisite qualifications for the post of Food and Drug Controller his name should be reconsidered by the Commission and its recommendation for appointment on the said post be sent to the Government. In this way the Government itself declared that Sri Bindal was possessing requisite qualification. Petitioner further submitted his reply by an amendment application dated 27.7.84 (Annexure 8 to the petition) but the enquiry officer without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce defence witnesses and documentary ; evidence, submitted his report. Petitioner's suspension was however revoked by an order dated 10.9.84 (Annexure 9 to the petition) passed by then Secretary to the Commission. Ultimately by order dated 30.10.85 (Annexure 10 to the petition) passed by the Chairman of the Commission, petitioner was dismissed from service for the misconduct. Petitioner was asked to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of the order as to why not the pay and allowances for the period of suspension be restricted to the amount which has already been paid to him. 6. Petitioner was asked to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of the order as to why not the pay and allowances for the period of suspension be restricted to the amount which has already been paid to him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct under Rule 3 (1) of the U.P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1956 (for short the Rules) nor he was guilty of any misconduct, negligence or inadvertence hence under the circumstances of the case particularly considering the fact that he was not posted in the section at the time then the scrutiny in respect of the application forms was being done at that time some other Section Officer was posted and even after that scrutiny entire files were placed before Mr. Rizvi, Member of the Commission who also approved the same and while sending the recommendation to the Government Mr. Sonkar, U.D.A. submitted a note to the effect that the recommendation about Sri Bindal was provisional, as he has not submitted certificate of 5 years experience and recommendation about Sri Ram Chandra Singh was at number hence recommendation about Sri Bindal may be considered only when he declined to join as there was only one post, but nevertheless the Government did not make any enquiry and requested the Commission to reconsider the matter of Ram Chandra Singh and make recommendation in favour of Sri Bindal as if the Government was satisfied about the experience of Sri Bindal, no responsibility can be shifted on the petitioner and he cannot be dismissed from II service. Reliance was placed on A.L. Kalra v. Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361 . 7. Learned Counsel for the Commission on the other hand refuted vehemently the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that a clear case of misconduct under the circumstances of the case was made out and the order of dismissal was perfectly correct. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties points for our determination primarily, whether under the circumstances of present case petitioner has committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) of the Rules, and whether impugned order of dismissal dated 30.10.85 can be sustained under the circumstances of the case. 9. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties points for our determination primarily, whether under the circumstances of present case petitioner has committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) of the Rules, and whether impugned order of dismissal dated 30.10.85 can be sustained under the circumstances of the case. 9. In the instant case petitioner was not posted in the Section concerned at the time when initial scrutiny about the sufficiency or otherwise of the experience etc. of candidates was being done and somebody else was posted as Section Officer and thereafter under the procedure of Commission, filed recommended for interview were sent to Mr. Rizvi, Member of the Commission and he owed the responsibility to scrutinise the applications hence it was for him to have scrutinised with more care and caution as to whether Mr. Bindal possessed requisite qualification but the same was not done, may be by an advertence or he might have taken it to be a routine affair. No doubt on the date of interview i.e. on 23.8.82 the petitioner was posted as Section Officer of the Service - 8 Section but his posting was done only on 11.8.82 in that Section and prior to that proceedings of scrutiny by Office and Mr. Rizvi had been completed. The candidature of Mr. Ram Chandra Singh was recommended at No. 1 and that of Mr. Bindal was at No. 2 and that too was provisional. Under the procedure of the Commission the recommendation was to be sent at the earliest within 3 days. Mr. R.D. Sonkar, the then Upper Division Assistant of Service - 8 Section, has already submitted a note, even though that was described as uncalled for, out for us that appears to be quite sufficient for the purpose and that absolves the petitioner from any negligence or inadvertance sought to be attributable to them. Mr. Sonkar has indicated in para 2 of the note (vide para 12 of the petition) that the recommendation of Sri Bindal has been made provisionally by the Commission as he did not furnish certificate of 5 years experience in Drug Standardisation, Drug Controlling, Drug Manufacturing and Drug testing from a recognised concerned institution. The State Government can appoint Mr. Bindal only after its satisfaction about the experience and in case Mr. Ram Chandra Singh recommended at No. 1 declined to join the post. The State Government can appoint Mr. Bindal only after its satisfaction about the experience and in case Mr. Ram Chandra Singh recommended at No. 1 declined to join the post. This was sufficient to indicate that there was no ulterior motive nor any negligence or inadvertence on the part of the petitioner. Even after this note the Government did not take into account the same. It appears that the State Government has got some soft corner for Mr. Bindal as without that, note or draft about the provisional recommendation of Sri Bindal by the Commission and its legal consequences and implications could not have been overlooked by the Government. 10. We are of the view that the Government lost site of functioning of the Commission as provided under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. The duty of the Commission was to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. Under sub - clause 3 of Article 320 of the Constitution Commission shall be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts; on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotion and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments promotions etc. In other words the responsibility for the maintenance of civil service in the State rests on the Commission but the power to be exercised by the Commission is purely statutory and must be confined within the Statutes. It has only such powers as have been granted to it by the Statutes. In fact the State Government reserves to itself the power to make appointment but how the Selection has to be made or the methods by which the selection is to be made or what method in respect of promotion or disciplinary action is to be followed is delegated to the Commission. The Commission has also got powers to make rules for the implementation of existing law in connection with the civil service. In fact the rules adopted by the Commission to carry particular provision of law pertaining to civil service have got the effect of law and there is no authority in departing from the same. In the present case in respect of the selection to the post of Food and Drug Controller U.P., after following procedure prescribed the Commission was of the opinion that Mr. In the present case in respect of the selection to the post of Food and Drug Controller U.P., after following procedure prescribed the Commission was of the opinion that Mr. Bindal did not possess requisite experience and to that effect a note was also put up while recommending the case of Mr. Ram Chandra Singh at No. 1 and Mr. Bindal at No. 2 and it was made clear that the recommendation in respect of Mr. Bindal was provisional as he did not possess 5 years experience and unless that was removed he could not be eligible for the post. In other words, in case Ram Chandra Singh, the candidate at No. 1 did not join only in that event the appointment of candidate of Serial No. 2 i.e. Sri Bindal would be considered. Nothing more could have been expected to bring to notice of State Government than that was done by Sri Sonkar vide his note which was forwarded by the petitioner. In this view of the matter the State Government did not follow the recommendations of the Commission, nor it took into account the note put up by Sri Sonkar rather it returned back the recommendations of the Commission with the observations that the recommendations for the appointment of Sri Bindal may be made. No doubt the State Government is not ordinarily bound to accept the recommendations of the Commission but where it was a question, that particular candidates lacked 5 years experience, which was requisite qualification and a note was put up to that effect, it was the solemn duty of the State Government to have enquired into the matter and to have as certained the correct facts, instead of doing it in the manner it chose to do. It requested the Commission vide letter dated 5.12.82 to reconsider the matter of recommendation of Sri Ram Chandra Singh whose name was recommended in the main select list at No.l. It was further requested by the Government that as Sri Bindal possessed requisite qualification for the said post hence his name should be recommended. It requested the Commission vide letter dated 5.12.82 to reconsider the matter of recommendation of Sri Ram Chandra Singh whose name was recommended in the main select list at No.l. It was further requested by the Government that as Sri Bindal possessed requisite qualification for the said post hence his name should be recommended. In other words, the Government did not follow the procedure for selection and when ultimately it was found out after filing of writ petition in this Court by Sadhan Kumar Mazumdar, that on account of lapse on the part of the State Government, the petitioner has been made an escape - goat but that was totally unfounded as the note submitted by Sri Sonkar and forwarded by the petitioner was sufficient. The State being largest employer under the Constitution owns heavy responsibility in respect of the selection of the candidates and it must remain vigilant. In fact the negligence was of the officer concerned at the State level who sent the recommendation back to be Commission to reconsider the case of Ram Chandra Singh who was recommended by the Commission at No.l and to make recommendation in favour of Mr. Bindal. Instead of placing the responsibility for all this negligence, in activity or lack of responsibility on the officer of the State Government who dealt with the file and was instrumental in getting the recommendation back to the Commission, it has been placed on the petitioner. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the Commission and State and the statement of fact contained in para 8 of the counter - affidavit that there was nothing to indicate in the note that the State Government should verify the eligibility of the provisionally recommended candidate regarding experience. It appears to - tally incomprehensible as to what more precaution must have been taken by Sri Sonkar or the petitioner instead of sending the note to the Government as indicated in para 12 of the petition. That note was more than sufficient. The Government must also behave sincerely and must be prepared to owe the responsibility or lapses on its part. We are, accordingly, satisfy in this respect that there was no lapses or negligence or lack of supervision on the part of the petitioner. 11. That note was more than sufficient. The Government must also behave sincerely and must be prepared to owe the responsibility or lapses on its part. We are, accordingly, satisfy in this respect that there was no lapses or negligence or lack of supervision on the part of the petitioner. 11. Coming to other aspects of the matter as to whether the petitioner has committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 (1) of tire Rules; Ex aoundanti cautela, statutory provisions of said Rule are set out below : "3. General - (1) Every Government Servant shall at all times : (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant." It is Rule 3 (1) of the aforesaid Rules under which petitioner has been charged to the effect that he did not maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Here it appears that the legislature has used the word "and" disjunctively. There appears nothing to indicate that the petitioner did not maintain absolute integrity rather it could be said that he did not maintain absolute devotion to duty. Before proceeding further to decide it is better to ascertain the concept of "misconduct". The word "misconduct" has not been defined under the Rules. According to Websters IIIrd New International Dictionary, "misconduct", connotes, "mismanagement, specially governmental responsibilities, intentional wrong doing, deliberate violation of Rule of law or standard of behaviour specially by a Government official." In other words misconduct is a generic term and obviously means, mismanagement, wrong or improper conduct, bad or unlawful behaviour. It also includes malfeasance. In Strout's Judicial Dictionary the word misconduct has been defined as under: "Misconduct means misconduct arising out of ill - motive acts or negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct." In Union of India v. Ahmad (All India Services Law Journal page 308) (supra) under para 11 their Lordships of Supreme Court in respect of misconduct held as follows : "Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government Servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government Servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way in consist ant with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct." In Pierce v. Foster (17 CH 536 at page 542) it has been held as follows : "If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service it is misconduct...........It is sufficient if it is a conduct which is prejudicial or is likely to be prejudicial to the interest or to the reputation of the master." Considering aforesaid definition and connotations of the term "misconduct", we are of the opinion that deliberate violation of rule or standard of behaviour or unlawful behaviour or a conduct inconsistent with the faithful discharge of the duty is a misconduct. Matter has further been clarified in A.L. Kalra v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361 , (supra) it has been held as follows : "A general expectation of a certain decent behaviour in respect of employees keeping in view Corporation culture may be a moral or ethical expectation. Failure to keep to such high standard of moral, ethical or decorous behaviour befitting an officer of the company by itself cannot constitute misconduct unless the specific conduct falls in any of the enumerated misconduct in Rule 5." 12. In the present case the petitioner was charged with misconduct as contemplated under Rule 3(1) of the Rules. No specific misconduct was pointed out rather taking all the charges together it was stated that the petitioner was also guilty of misconduct as he failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty. Again the word devotion is very comprehensive. Devotion means earnestness and real in performance of one's duties. 13. In the present case we have indicated above that the petitioner was not posted in the section at the time when the application forms were received and scrutinised but certainly some other Section Officer was posted there. After the scrutiny was done at the office level it was again scrutinised by Mr. Rizvi, Member of the Commission. It could not be said that the scrutiny at the level of a Member of the Commission was just in a routine way. After the scrutiny was done at the office level it was again scrutinised by Mr. Rizvi, Member of the Commission. It could not be said that the scrutiny at the level of a Member of the Commission was just in a routine way. It is expected that a scrutiny which gave final shape about the prescribed educational qualification including experience on the basis of which a candidate could be called for interview, must be done quite sincerely. Before the petitioner could join the in Service - 8 Section, if the relevant forms of Sri Bindal were examined by some other Section Officer and also by the Member of Public Service Commission it could not be said in any manner that the petitioner failed in his devotion to duty or an absolute devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1) of the Rules. It is better to make a reference to American Jurisprudence, 2nd volume, Section 60 (1) as follows : "Removal from service may be justified for acts incompatible with or inimical to the public service or for failure of good behaviour or for misconduct unbecoming a public employer such as will fully disobeying established rules or departmental orders promulgated in good faith." The test of misconduct was indicated in indicated in A.L. Kalra v.The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361 as follows : "What in a given context would constitute conduct unbecoming of a public servant to be treated as misconduct would expose a grey area not amenable to objective evaluation. Where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct." 14. Applying a foresaid principles to the present case we are of the view that the petitioner neither lacked any devotion to duty nor his behaviour could be said to be unbecoming of a public servant so that the same may be treated as misconduct. The initial scrutiny of relevant forms including that of Mr. Bindal was done by Section Officer other than the petitioner. Thereafter at the 2nd stage another scrutiny was done by a person no less than the Member of the Commission. The initial scrutiny of relevant forms including that of Mr. Bindal was done by Section Officer other than the petitioner. Thereafter at the 2nd stage another scrutiny was done by a person no less than the Member of the Commission. At both the stages the petitioner was not posted as Section Officer rather when he was posted as Section Officer just after few days interview was held. As forms were scrutinised earlier, petitioner has no say in the matter nor any lack of responsibility could be fastened on the shoulders of the petitioners. The conduct of the petitioner could have been blamed only when the petitioner would not have indicated the fact of provisional recommendation of Sri Bindal. It was clearly stated that as Sri Bindal did not possess 5 years experience hence his recommendation was provisional. But instead of looking into the note submitted by Sri Sonkar and forwarded by the petitioner, at the Government level what weighed much is incomprehensible. The Commission recommended Sri Ram Chandra Singh at No. 1 and Sri Bindal at No. 2. It was clearly mentioned in the note that the recommendation in favour of Sri Bindal was provisional but the State Government requested the Commission to consider the matter of Sri Ram Chandra Singh again and recommend Sri Bindal as he possessed requisite qualification. Under these circumstances the Government refused to take into consideration the lack of experience pointed out by Sri Sonkar vide his note which was forwarded by the petitioner. In that event by no strech of imagination it could be said that die petitioner lacked his absolute devotion to duty. Even applying priori and posteriori methods of reasoning it could not be said that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct. The impugned order of Chairman of the Commission dismissing the petitioner from service under these circumstances could not be sustained. 15. In view of the premises aforesaid present petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.10.85 (Annexure 10 to the petition) passed by the Chairman of the Commission is quashed. The petitioner would be reinstated forthwith and would be entitled to his salary and other emoluments since the date he was placed under suspension. Under the circumstances of the case we refrain from making any order as to costs.