Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court could examine explanatory, incidental, supplementary or subsequently surfaced charges and evidence beyond the original Presidential Reference; (ii) whether Charge 1, alleging inadequate qualification, experience and stature for appointment as Chairman or Members of the Public Service Commission, was proved as misbehaviour; (iii) whether Charges 2 to 5, 8 and 9, relating to selection irregularities, non-cooperation with investigating agencies, withholding of records and related conduct, were established as misbehaviour warranting removal; and (iv) whether Charges 6 and 7 were within the scope of the Presidential Reference.
Issue (i): Whether, in a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court could examine explanatory, incidental, supplementary or subsequently surfaced charges and evidence beyond the original Presidential Reference.
Analysis: Article 317(1) confers an advisory and limited jurisdiction, but the inquiry is into the facts themselves and not merely into the allegations as originally stated. The constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court Rules and the nature of the office permit examination of charges that are linked, inter-dependent, explanatory or intrinsically connected with the referred allegations. The Court held that subsequent facts and additional materials having a direct bearing on the matter could be considered, but entirely new and unconnected charges could not be introduced if they would prejudice the respondents.
Conclusion: The Court could examine explanatory and intrinsically connected additional charges and evidence, but not independent charges having no direct nexus with the Presidential Reference.
Issue (ii): Whether Charge 1, alleging inadequate qualification, experience and stature for appointment as Chairman or Members of the Public Service Commission, was proved as misbehaviour.
Analysis: Article 316 of the Constitution of India prescribes no specific educational qualification, experience or professional stature for appointment as Chairman or Member, except that as nearly as may be one-half of the members must have held office under the Government for at least ten years. The Court held that no constitutional qualification was breached, and the charge rested on vague assertions rather than cogent evidence. The law does require high standards of integrity and suitability for such offices, but that policy consideration cannot be converted by the Court into a new eligibility prescription for the office.
Conclusion: Charge 1 was not proved and did not establish misbehaviour.
Issue (iii): Whether Charges 2 to 5, 8 and 9, relating to selection irregularities, non-cooperation with investigating agencies, withholding of records and related conduct, were established as misbehaviour warranting removal.
Analysis: On the evidence, the Court found that the selection and recommendation of Pradeep Sangwan were tainted by serious irregularities, including acceptance of a bogus experience certificate, ante-dated processing, failure to scrutinise the candidate's eligibility and an unjustified recommendation despite complaint and supporting material. The Court further found that the Chairman and Members adopted a non-cooperative stance, withheld records from the investigating agencies, passed resolutions to resist disclosure, and persisted despite judicial directions. The privilege claim was held to lack bona fides, and the collective conduct was found to have lowered public confidence and fallen below the standards expected of constitutional functionaries. Applying the standard of reasonable preponderance of probabilities, the Court concluded that these acts amounted to misbehaviour under Article 317(1).
Conclusion: Charges 2 to 5, 8 and 9 were established, and the respondents were found guilty of misbehaviour on those counts.
Issue (iv): Whether Charges 6 and 7 were within the scope of the Presidential Reference.
Analysis: Charges 6 and 7 were held to be new and independent allegations, not incidental or explanatory to the referred charges and not directly emerging from the record placed before the President. The Court held that examining them would go beyond the permissible scope of the inquiry and could prejudice the respondents.
Conclusion: Charges 6 and 7 were beyond the scope of the Presidential Reference and were not examined on merits.
Final Conclusion: The inquiry culminated in a finding that the established charges justified removal of the concerned Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission from office on the ground of misbehaviour, while the inadequate-qualification charge failed and the two independent extra charges were excluded from consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: In a Presidential Reference under Article 317(1), the Court may consider additional or subsequently surfaced charges and evidence if they are explanatory, incidental or intrinsically connected with the referred allegations, and removal may be recommended where the conduct of a constitutional functionary fails the standard of integrity and rectitude judged on reasonable preponderance of probabilities.