TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... country's services. The Constitution, in Part XIV, provides for establishment of the Union and State Public Service Commissions with the primary object of providing equal opportunity to the people of India in matters relating to appointment. Establishment of these Commissions is one of the important facets of the constitutional scheme. Public Service Commissions are expected to adopt a fair and judicious process of selection to ensure that deserving and meritorious candidates are inducted to the services of the State. This should not only be done but also appear to have been done. In re, Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman Bihar PSC [(2000) 4 SCC 309], this Court observed as follows: "1. Founding Fathers of the Indian Constitution relying upon the experience in other countries wherever democratic institutions exist, intended to secure an efficient civil service. This is the genesis for setting up autonomous and independent bodies like the Public Service Commission at the center and in the States. The values of independence, impartiality and integrity are the basic determinants of the constitutional conception of Public Service Commissions and their role and funct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....instance the Conseil d'Etat in France, which is composed of the cream of the French Civil Service, has acquired considerable veneration for its capacity to police intelligently the complex administration of the modern state. Justice J.C. Shah in his report on the excesses of the Emergency, struck by the "unhealthy factors governing the relationship between ministers and civil servants", recommended the adoption of droit administratif of the French model by the Government. He observed that the commitment of a public functionary should be to the duties of his office, their due performance with an emphasis on their ethical content and not to the ideologies, political or otherwise of the politicians, who administer the affairs of the State. Great powers are vested in the Commission and therefore, it must ensure that there is no abuse of such powers. The principles of public accountability and transparency in the functioning of an institution are essential for its proper governance. The necessity of sustenance of public confidence in the functioning of the Commission may be compared to the functions of judiciary in administration of justice which was spelt out by Lord Denning in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 1-08-2006 1.12.2004 Chander official Chancellor, Banger, G.J. 2. Sh. Narender Singh,BA (LLB) Non- Journalist (Member) 17.06.1998 16.06.2004 3. Sh. Dayal Singh, B.Sc. Engg. Official G.M. Industries, Haryana 03.07.1998 18.07.1998 - 4. Sh. Jagdish Rai, MAOfficial Lecturer (Member) 18.07.1998 17.07.2004 5. Sh. Mahender Singh Shastri, Shastri BA (LLB) Official Teacher O.T. (Member) 28.02.2000 27.02.2006 07.12.2004 6. Sh. Mehar Singh Saini BAMS Non- Private Official Practitioner (Member) 07.07.2000 06.07.2006 1.12.2004 7. Sh. Gulshan Bhardwaj LLB Non- Social Activist official (Member) 04.04.2001 09.08.2004 8. Sh. S.K. Gupta, B.A. Non- official (Member) 04.04.2001 03.04.2007 05.07.2004 9. Sh. Pardeep Chaudhary B.A. Non- Social Activist official(Member) 04.05.2002 03.05.2008 05.07.2004 The election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly was due in February, 2005 and the model code of conduct was imposed by the competent authority on 17th December, 2004. The Government started taking steps for appointing the Chairman/Members of the Commission just before the imposition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry enquiries, the Government claims to have initiated vigilance enquiries as well as First Information Reports were registered for the alleged irregularities, illegalities and acts of commissions and omissions by the Chairman and Members of the Commission. This resulted in the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, writing a letter dated 18th December, 2006, to the Secretary to the Governor of Haryana, requesting him to refer the matter to the President of India at the earliest for removal of the Chairman and Members of the Commission in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India. It was averred that the Chairman and Members of the Commission were guilty of misbehaviour, as mentioned under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. It was also averred that they do not possess requisite qualification, experience and had been appointed to the coveted offices only to achieve political ends. In this letter, detailed facts were given about the qualifications, experience and credentials of the Chairman and Members of the Commission with definite emphasis on the fact that they had made appointments contrary to the rules and with favouritism. Their conduct in making selection to differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngh, Yudhvir Singh, Satbir Singh, Om Prakash Bishnoi, Ranbir Singh Hooda, R.K. Kashyap and Smt. Santosh Singh as Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission refused to co-operate in the investigation being carried out by the State Vigilance Bureau in spite of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in complaints regarding selections made by the Commission, AND WHEREAS I am satisfied from the above referred material before me that it is necessary that the said allegations be inquired into. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by clause (1) of the Article 317 of the Constitution, I, Pratibha Devisingh Patil, President of India, do hereby refer to the Supreme Court of India for enquiry and report as to whether the existing Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission, ought, on the grounds of misbehaviour, be removed from the office of the Chairman and Members of the Commission." It is evident from the above-mentioned Reference that the Chairman as well as all the eight Members are alleged to have conducted themselves in a manner, which amounts to misbehaviour within the meaning of Article 317(1) and, thus, are l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and they wrote various letters to the authorities of the Commission to hand over the same for expeditious completion of inquiry. However, it is the case of the Government and the investigating agencies that the Commission did not cooperate at all and the records, despite repeated demands, had not been handed over to them. As a result of non- cooperation by the Chairman and Members of the Commission, proceedings in the Court were initiated in which, ultimately, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Haryana Public Service Commission v. State of Haryana (Writ Petition no.12593 of 2005) [(2005)141 PLR 486], passed an order dated 12th August, 2005 making certain observations against the conduct of the Commission, its Chairman and Members. We will be referring to this order in some detail shortly. Against this order of the High Court, Special Leave Petition was preferred before this Court, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19th September, 2005. Separate proceedings were also initiated by the Member(s) of the Commission in their own right, who had prayed for permission to file Special Leave Petition, against the order of the High Court but the same was also decli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere stated in the Presidential Reference. However, during the pendency of the matter before the Court and because of subsequent events the State Government filed additional articles of charge. Six charges were sought to be added to the charge-sheet, in all bringing the total to nine. From the record, it appears that the matter was heard at some length and on 22nd April, 2009, a Bench of this Court passed the following order: "Heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission, and also Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Haryana. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel has objected to the draft charges Nos.1, 4, 7 and 8. The objections were regarding the very appointment of the Chairman as one of the grounds of misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India. It was argued on behalf of the State that the very appointment itself requires consideration, therefore, these draft charges require to be looked into. As regards other charges, it was alleged by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that many of the facts are not stated either in the Presidential reference or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt, in complaints regarding selections made by the Commission and his deliberate non-supply of documents needed in the inquiry and refusal to cooperate in the investigations. This constitutes misbehaviour within the meaning of Article 317(1). 4. That the bare reading of the contents of the additional documents placed on record, including inspection reports dated 24.1.2008/1.2.2008 and the interim order dated 14.1.2008, passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.15,390 of 2002, clearly established that the acts of manipulations and interpolations in answer-sheets of favourite candidates was deliberate abuse of the process of selection by Sh. Mehar Singh Saini as Member of Haryana Public Service Commission, in the selection of 2002 for Haryana Civil Services (Executive and Allied) Examination in the year 2002 and the same constitute an act of grave misbehaviour, warranting the invocation of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, for his removal. 5. That the acts of omission and commission of Sh. Mehar Singh Saini as Member of Haryana Public Service Commission and his subsequent act and conduct as Chairman of Haryana Public Service Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commission to co-operate with the investigating agency. This deliberate act on their part clearly amounts to misbehaviour as envisaged under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India for their removal." Thus, this Court has been called upon to examine whether the conduct of the Chairman/Members of the Commission amounts to misbehaviour in light of these approved articles of charge and the evidence produced on record, which would justify their removal in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution. The challenge by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of one of the respondents in the present Reference, to the additional charges, which have been approved by the Court, is, primarily, on the ground that the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 317(1) is a limited jurisdiction and the Court has to conduct its inquiry and record its finding in the report only in relation to the articles of charge referred to by the President in exercise of its powers under Article 317(1). Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the merit or otherwise of the said additional articles of charge. It is his submission that it is not an omnibus Reference. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of favouritism and other extraneous considerations. According to the learned counsel there is sufficient evidence, documentary and oral, on record to substantiate and prove the approved articles of charge in accordance with law. With reference to the charge of non- cooperation, it is contended that despite the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the course of action adopted by the Chairman and Members of the Commission is not only misbehaviour but is contemptuous to the extent that it violates prudent norms of governance in accordance with law. The acts of favouritism, manipulation of records and the conduct of the Chairman and Members of the Commission are unacceptable from constitutional functionaries and, therefore, they are liable to be removed from their office. We may notice that the learned counsel appearing for some of the other respondents principally adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, but added greater emphasis on the contention that exercise of right of privilege in relation to records of the Commission, being affairs of the State, was a justifiable claim. Further, the charge that the Chairman/Members of the Commission do not possess requisite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of clause (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour." A bare reading of Article 317 shows that the constitutional protection for the term of office of Chairman and Members of the Commission is provided to ensure independent functioning of the Commission. The working of the Commission and its Members has to be of impeccable integrity and rectitude. The object should be to provide the best persons from the available candidates for appointment in the State/Central cadres. This has to be done by adopting a judicious, fair and transparent method of selection, free of influence from any quarter in the Government or otherwise. That is why the framers of the Constitution clearly distinguished appointments to the Commission from appointments to the State Services or All India Services. The Members of the Commission cannot be subjected to regular departmental enquiries and can only be removed from their office by strictly complying with the provisions of Article 317 of the Constitution. This provision contemplates removal of the Member on two different grounds. First, where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnection between the articles of charge subsequently suggested before this Court and the original articles of charge referred by the President. The question of any prejudice to the delinquent will not arise inasmuch as the concerned party is given full opportunity to challenge the articles of charge as well as the evidence led in support of charges by the Government, during the process of inquiry before this Court. Article 317(1) requires that the inquiry held by this Court is to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf under Article 145 of the Constitution. Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to make rules, with the approval of the President, for regulating generally the practice and procedure of this Court. In turn, Article 145(1)(j) specifically empowers the Supreme Court to frame Rules, with the approval of the President of India, to regulate the procedure for enquiries referred to under clause (1) of Article 317 of the Constitution. Of course, such rules have to be subject to any law that may be enacted by the Parliament. The Supreme Court has framed the following rules under Part VI, Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 for conducting inquiry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the provisions of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After recording of evidence, the matter is to be placed before the Court for regular hearing upon which, the Court is expected to make a report of its findings on the misbehaviour of the Chairman/Members of the Commission. Article 316 of the Constitution of India regulates appointment of Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission. Proviso to Article 316(1) provides that, as nearly as may be, one half of the members of every Public Service Commission shall be persons who, at the dates of their respective appointments, have held office, for at least ten years, either under the Government of India or the Government of a State. In other words, one-half of the members of the Commission who are to be appointed by the Governor, should have held `public office' for a period of ten years prior to their appointments and are normally termed as `official members'. However, it is not necessary for the remaining one-half of the members of the Commission to possess such qualifications or experience for appointment and they are termed as `non-official members'. The power to remove a Chairman/Member....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference 1 of 1983 referred by us supra, this Court also examined whether additional facts or grounds can be examined while holding an inquiry into the matters referred in the Presidential Reference and held as under: "7. ... The inquiry which this Court is required to hold is not into the limited question whether, on the basis of facts found by the President, the charge of misbehaviour is made out and whether the misbehaviour is of such a nature as to warrant the removal of the person from his office. The inquiry contemplated by the article is into the facts themselves and facts also so as to enable this Court to pronounce upon the question whether the allegations made against the Chairman or member are proved at all. The purpose of Article 317(1) is to ensure the independence of members of the Public Service Commissions and to give them protection in the matter of their tenure. The Judges of the Supreme Court can be removed from their office only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Article 124(4) which is made applicable to the Judges of High Courts, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India and the Chief Election Commissioner by Articles 218, 148 and A 324(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India has been clearly drawn by this Court in Special Reference No. 1 of 1983 [1983] 3SCR639 . This Court therein has held that the President's prima facie satisfaction based on available materials was enough for making a reference to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India and that there was no need for the President to obtain the opinion of any fact finding body before making a reference. The enquiry which this Court is required to hold is not into the limited question whether, on the basis of facts found by the President, the charge of misbehavior is made out and whether the misbehavior is of such a nature as to warrant the removal of the person from his office. The inquiry contemplated by the Article is into the facts themselves so as to enable the Court to pronounce upon the question whether the allegations made against the member are proved. This Court also indicated the procedure that could be conveniently followed when this Court is called upon to answer a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India." To apply the rule of strict construction to the language of Article 317(1) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f service jurisprudence are relationship of employer and employee, alleged misconduct being in breach of the rules/regulations controlling the conditions of service of such an employee and such charges then are to be proved in accordance with the specified procedure for imposition of minor and major penalties. The departmental proceedings have to be conducted in accordance with the specified rules and regulations. The concept of departmental enquiry under the service jurisprudence cannot be equated with the proceedings in an inquiry under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. This distinction is a marked one. Keeping in mind the constitutional protections available to the Chairman and Members of the Commission, the stature they enjoy and the duties that they are expected to perform, the principles of service jurisprudence cannot be strictly applied to these proceedings. As already noticed, the power to remove the Chairman/Member of the Commission is exclusively vested in the President and not even in their appointing authority. The appointments to the State Commissions are made by the Governor but still in the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution, the power to remove them from o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal jurisprudence to the present proceedings in regard to opportunity of being heard, burden of proof and content of charges. The principles of criminal jurisprudence contemplate different standards of proof, language of charge and protections available to a suspect/accused. It is neither practicable nor possible to apply the norms of criminal law to the proceedings under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India. In criminal law, the charge should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of probability. Under the service jurisprudence, a person may be found guilty even on the charge being proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities while in the proceedings of the present kind, conduct of a person may amount to misbehaviour requiring his removal under Article 317(1) of the Constitution on the basis of rule of reasonable preponderance of probabilities. This distinction is fully justified with reference to the constitutional scheme behind these provisions and the standards of performance and behaviour that the holders of such office are required to maintain. In other words, the proceedings before this Court are neither akin to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....complaint and the respondent's defence." Further in para 143, this Court held as under : "143...As we have indicated in the beginning, what we are concerned with is the appreciation of the evidence of PW 15 examined before us in the light of his cross-examination, the other evidence and in the light of his prior statement contained in Ext. 53. So viewed, it is really a question of believing or disbelieving the evidence of PW 15 given before us. We are not dealing with a prosecution and in that context the alleged confession of a co-accused. We are on a fact- finding enquiry based on the evidence before us and the probabilities of the case." The above reasoning persuades us to follow the law enunciated in the afore-referred cases and take the view that the content and nature of the proceedings before this Court under Article 317(1) is sui generis and the Court can evolve its own procedure in consonance with the principles of natural justice to suit the facts of a given case and to ensure that ends of justice are achieved and there is no abuse of the process of Court. Discussion on the scope of approved articles of charge There is no doubt that in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been framed only against respondent No.1. Lastly, Charge 2 has been framed against respondents No.1 to 4. While Charge 1 relates to lack of qualification and experience. Charges 3, 5 and 9 relate to non- cooperation by passing resolutions not to handover the records to the inquiring/investigating agencies. Charges 6 and 7 relate to influencing subordinates and abuse of public office by the respondent specifically named under these charges. Charge 2 attributes misbehaviour to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in relation to irregular appointment of Pradeep Sangwan. Charge 3, as approved by this Court, relates to refusal on the part of all the respondents to cooperate and to supply documents, as required by the investigating agencies. Charge 5 of the approved articles of charge also refers to withholding of the material records which were required by the investigating agencies as well as by the Government in face of the fact that the Government had received complaints of serious irregularities and illegalities committed by the Chairman and members of the Commission in various selections including selection to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services Examination, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proved articles of charge are inter- connected. However, we may notice that these approved articles of charge are totally independent and are not incidental or explanatory to the articles of charge specified in the Presidential Reference. They do not even emerge directly from the record produced before us. The alleged malicious acts of influencing the subordinates to carry out the intended manipulations to favour desired persons and abuse of the public office and defending the illegal acts referred to in approved article 6 of the charges, therefore, cannot be gone into by this Court. We have already held that this Court can examine explanatory, incidental or intrinsically inter-connected charges to the charges mentioned in the Reference and in that respect can take note of additional facts, take evidence and examine the entire record before it. But where the charges, apparently and in substance, are new and do not appear to be justifiable on the basis of the record and there is no direct evidence to substantiate them, it may not be in the ends of justice that this Court should examine those articles of charge in the present inquiry. In the event they are examined, the delinquent Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charges. The concept of doctrine of pleasure, which is applicable to civil servants, is not attracted in the constitutional appointments under Articles 124 and 316. Removal is possible only when the conditions postulated under these Articles are satisfied. In order to clearly understand the fine distinction between misbehaviour and misconduct which at some places have even been treated synonymously, we may refer to some accepted definitions of these terms. In Law Lexicon 2nd Ed. 1997, the term `misbehaviour' is explained as under: "ill-conduct: improper and unlawful behaviour. The term `misbehaviour', in a statute providing that the award of arbitrators may be vacated if the arbitrators were guilty of misbehaviour, is used to imply a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment, on the part of the arbitrators. In Reference No.1 of 2003 [(2009) 1 SCC 344] this Court noted that the expression `misbehaviour' has not been defined, but still ventured to provide certain examples of such misbehaviour which would constitute `misbehaviour' as contemplated under Article 317(1) of the Constitution held as under : "28. Article 317, like Article 124(4) doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....haviour qua proceeding under that Act, in absence of definition, is a word of very wide import. `Misbehaviour', when employed in respect of holders of high offices, has a well understood and well defined meaning according to the tradition and standards maintained by the members of a particular service or office. This Court had the occasion to deal with the expression misconduct in the case of Narotanmal Chouraria v. M. R. Murli [(2004) 5 SCC 689] wherein the Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex- Constable [(1992) 4 SCC 54] and referred to paragraph 6 of that judgment with approval and held in paragraph 10 and 11 of the judgment as under : "10... "6. Thus it could be seen that the word `misconduct' though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour; unlawful behaviour, willful in character; forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India [(1991) 4 SCC 699] held as under: "44. The Constitution intended a clear provision for the first part covered fully by enacted law, the validity of which and the process thereunder being subject to judicial review independent of any political colour and after proof it was intended to be a parliamentary process. It is this synthesis made in our Constitutional Scheme for removal of a Judge. If the motion for presenting an address for removal is envisaged by Articles 121 and 124(4) `on ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity' it presupposes that misbehaviour or incapacity has been proved earlier. This is more so on account of the expression `investigation and proof' used in clause (5) with specific reference to clause (4). This indicates that `investigation and proof' of misbehaviour or incapacity is not within clause (4) but within clause (5). Use of the expression `same session' in clause (4) without any reference to session in clause (5) also indicates that session of House has no significance for clause (5) i.e., `investigation and proof' which is to be entirely governed by the enact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Reference No.1 of 2003 (supra), this term must be construed very liberally so as to bring within its ambit the behaviour of the Chairman/Member of the Commission which, as per settled norms, was not expected of him/her. The expression `misbehaviour' generally refers to a conduct which might erode the faith and confidence of the public at large in such constitutional office. Discussion on merits of the approved articles of charge Before we proceed to discuss the evidence on each approved article of charge, as well as record our findings in that regard, it is imperative to note, as already held, that we are only examining Charges 1 to 5, 8 and 9. Charges 6 and 7 do not require examination by this Court as they are ex-facie beyond the permissible scope of the Presidential Reference. The second aspect, which requires to be noticed by the Court, is that though approved articles of charge have been framed against all the private respondents, while the proceedings were pending, private respondents, namely, Doonger Ram, Chattar Singh, Yudhvir Singh, Satbir Singh, Om Prakash and Dr. Ranbir Singh were suspended vide order dated 9th August, 2008 and, thereafter, they have ceas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r has to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The provisions of Article 316 of the Constitution do not lay down any qualification, educational or otherwise, for appointment to the Commission as Chairman/Member. One-half of the Members of the Commission, as nearly as may be, are expected to fulfil the requirement of holding appointments under the State or the Centre for a period of ten years. These Members are termed as `Official Members' while the others are `Non-official Members' as already indicated by us above. Even for the Official Members no specific academic qualification has been provided. In other words, there is no constitutional requirement of any particular academic qualification for appointment as Official/Non-official Member of the Commission. Similarly, no specific experience of any number of years is required for appointment as Non- official Member. In the case of Jai Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1993) 2 SCC 597], this Court stated that it is clear that framers of the Constitution realized that to make the provision rigid was both inadvisable and unnecessary. The Court also demonstrated its impracticability. It can further hardly be suggested ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Court emphasized that keeping in line with the high expectations of their office and need to observe absolute integrity and impartiality in the exercise of their powers and duties, the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission are required to be selected on the basis of their merit, ability and suitability and they are expected to be role models for the persons whom they are going to select for Civil Services. The character and conduct of the Chairman and Members of the Commission, like Caesar's wife, must therefore, be above board. They occupy a unique place and position; utmost objectivity in the performance of their duties, integrity and detachment are essential requirements for holding these high constitutional offices. Similarly, in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [(2006) 11 SCC 356], this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction was concerned with allegations against the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission that in discharge of his duties, he had selected persons for extraneous as well as monetary considerations during 1996 to 2002. For such conduct and selections, FIRs had been registered in that behalf while the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at all is not well with the functioning of the Commissions. The Government has led documentary and oral evidence and has opted to examine, as many as, 31 witnesses in support of the approved articles of charge. In regard to approved article of charge 1, we find that there is hardly any direct oral or documentary evidence. While this charge relates to lack of qualification, experience and stature, the Governor's letter to the President states that these persons influenced the Government in making their appointments. Of course, it is expected that persons being appointed to such high office should not use any influence or pressure or take favour from the Government in power but at the same time that fault would have to be traced to the processing and the appointing authority rather than the candidate alone. It was contended that the Chairman, Mehar Singh Saini, is a private practitioner holding a BAMS degree only and, therefore, ineligible/incompetent to be appointed to the post of Chairman of the Commission. However, it was not disputed by any of the parties appearing before us that he was from the Non-official category and, as such, the experience of ten years as Government ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Drugs, whose certificate was produced by the candidate for the purpose of satisfying the essential condition of experience before the Selection Committee. The counsel appearing for the Commission has not even attempted to deny these averments and the charge against these Members. However, on behalf of four private respondents, it is contended that it was not for the Members of the Selection Committee to verify the contents of the certificate. They have conducted the selection in accordance with law and no arbitrariness can be attributed to them. As many as 27 candidates were considered for the post and, ultimately, two names were recommended. Pradeep Sangwan, being at serial number 1, was then appointed by the Government and as such no fault could be attributed to the members of the Selection Committee. It is also argued that if Pradeep Sangwan has obtained a bogus certificate then, at best, he can be said to have committed some offence and that cannot be understood as an instance of misbehaviour on the part of the private respondents. Further, the contention is that there is no evidence to support this charge. The charge is simpliciter relating to improper selection of Pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission of application as well as for consideration of the eligibility criteria was 3rd September, 2004. Let us now examine the application that was submitted by Pradeep Sangwan. Pradeep Sangwan had submitted application No.25827, as per the endorsement made under receipt No. (??????? ?????? ) 713 dated (??????) 9th September, 2004. However, respondent No.5 had initialed the application with the date as 3rd September, 2004. This, obviously, means that the endorsement by respondent No.5 on the application was ante-dated to the actual date of receipt of the application. This application ought to have been rejected at the very threshold inasmuch as this was received after the prescribed last date of receipt of application i.e. 3rd September, 2004. In his application, under column No.10, Pradeep Sangwan had stated that he has done his B. Pharma from M.D. University, Rohtak in 2001. In column No.12 of the application, the applicant had not stated that he had any experience of teaching on regular and/or voluntary basis. However, he had annexed to the application a copy of the certificate dated 16th August, 2004 stating that he had served in Janta College of Pharmacy, Butana, Sonep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken. It was put up for consideration, through the Superintendent, before Mr. Yudhvir Singh, Member of the Commission, who approved its filing and then it was also signed by the Chairman of the Commission. It needs to be noticed that this process adopted by the Commission and, particularly, by its Member and Chairman was not in consonance with the known canons of administrative jurisprudence. May be the names of Pradeep Sangwan and his father were stated incorrectly as Pradeep Kumar and Ram Singh in the complaint, but fact of the matter remains that Pradeep Sangwan was the selected candidate. Select list of only two persons had been prepared and approved by the Selection Committee. Thus it was expected that this complaint ought to have been examined in some detail, particularly when the facts alleged in the complaint found due support from the documents annexed to the application of the candidate as well as the official records of the Commission. In the present day when unemployment is one of the biggest problems faced by our country, it is expected that the Commission will scrutinize the antecedents of a candidate with utmost care before recommending him for appointment that too f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erintendent of Police (since retired), has specifically stated that experts, invited by the Commission for this selection, were not provided the original record despite demand. PW20 had also recorded the statement of Dr. Mrs. Usha Batta, Senior Deputy Director, Health Department in that behalf. In other words, the members of the Selection Committee, namely, the private respondents, obviously favoured the selection of Pradeep Sangwan. PW2, Sajjan Kumar, who is Deputy Superintendent of Police had investigated the matter and also filed an affidavit, the relevant portion of which is stated as under : 1. That above noted case was registered following the Vigilance enquiry No.5 dated 16.5.2005, Chandigarh against Dr. K.C. Bangar, Chairman, Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as HPSC) and Sh. Pradeep Sangwan s/o Mohinder Singh Sangwan, Drug Inspector, Jhajjar r/o Vill. Kohla, Distt. Sonepat and others. In this enquiry, it was alleged that during August, 2004, Haryana Public Service Commission advertised the Post of Drug Inspectors in Health Department in Haryana. The said Pradeep Sangwan also applied for this post and submitted two different experience certificates....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gation are not the only basis for which we are drawing certain inferences. But they are certainly relevant considerations, which have to be kept in mind by the Court, while examining the matter in its entirety to see whether the misbehaviour complained of is attributable to and committed by the private respondents. Conclusion of misbehaviour of the private respondents shall further be substantiated by the fact that when the private respondents were cross-examining PW20, they did not even suggest that he had not recorded the statement of other witnesses including expert Dr. Mrs. Usha Batta correctly or not at all. On the contrary, the question was put suggesting that statement of this witness was recorded and a particular question was not put to this witness. The following question and answer in the cross-examination completely demolishes the objection now sought to be raised before us : Q. At the time of questioning of Dr. Usha Batta, did you ask her as to whether in the interview on 28^th and 29th September, she had objected in writing that the relevant certificates were not shown to her? R. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame was also forwarded for appointment to the State Government. We are not holding that furnishing of the false certificate by Pradeep Sangwan was an act attributable to the Chairman/Members of the Commission but its acceptance, despite the complaint and the manner in which Pradeep Sangwan was selected and recommended for appointment to a very responsible post in the State Government, certainly is clothed in suspicion and favouritism. We are informed that Pradeep Sangwan is now no longer in service As a result of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the conduct of the Members of the Commission, in processing the application of Pradeep Sangwan, endorsing and approving his name for the interview, selecting him and finally recommending his name for appointment to the post of Senior Drug Inspector, does not meet the standards of behaviour, integrity and rectitude required to be maintained by the office they were holding. Thus, their behaviour with respect to this article of charge would certainly fall within the ambit of misbehaviour justifying their removal from office. Articles of Charge 3 to 5, 8 and 9 Approved articles of charge 3, 5, 8 and 9 pertaining to al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Commission deciding not to hand over the records to the investigating agencies upon demand and despite directions. All these allegations of commissions and omissions according to the State Government amount to misbehaviour within the meaning of Article 317(1) of the Constitution and justify their removal from the office. We have already noticed that the contention raised, on behalf of the private respondents, is that the articles of charge are beyond the scope of Presidential Reference. There is no evidence to support them and, in any case, the alleged conduct does not amount to misbehaviour as it was a legitimate right of the Commission to claim privilege acting through its Chairman and Members. Thus, the decision not to furnish the records to the investigating agencies was justifiable. In the preceding paragraphs we have already held that this Court has jurisdiction to examine additional or explanatory charges, records, documents, evidence and facts which may come to light even subsequent to the Presidential Reference in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. They are not such independent articles of charge to which there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d adopted unfair method of selection. Favorite candidates were selected and it was also stated that there has been interpolation and manipulation of marks in the answer sheets of the selected as well as non-selected candidates. In furtherance to FIR No.15 dated 8th August, 2005, a charge-sheet, for the offences afore-stated, had been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 30th August, 2006. Despite repeated demands, complete records were not given to the investigating agencies. It is clear from the record that during the period 25 th May, 2005 to 5th July, 2005, the Vigilance Bureau issued as many as 8 letters asking for the records in relation to different inquiries. Instead of cooperating, the private respondents opted to file a writ petition, through the Commission, being Writ Petition No.12593 of 2005, which was contested by the State. Various complaints, reports and documents were produced before the High Court and ultimately in its judgment in Haryana Public Service Commission (supra), dated 12th August, 2005, the High Court clearly observed that the Commission could not claim immunity from providing records, particularly, when the investigations were in furthera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontrary would not only erode the public confidence in the Commission but would also result in merit being a casualty. 15. ... Therefore, if a formal F.I.R. is registered, then even as per the learned Counsel, the holding of the vigilance inquiries could be justified. In our considered view, it would embarrass the Commission, its Chairman and its Members more rather than protect. Holding of the vigilance inquiry without registration of any formal F.I.R., in our view is in the nature of a fact finding exercise. If after the aforesaid exercise is undertaken, the commission of any criminal offence is made out, the law will take it own course. XXX XXX XXX 18. We find that the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel is also without any merit. There is no dispute with the preposition (sic) of law that while exercising the power of judicial review this Court would be slow in making competitive comparison of the selected candidates vis-a-vis the unsuccessful candidates. To this extent reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Jasjit Singh Sidhu's case (supra) is wholly justified. However, we express our inability to ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and model code of conduct had come into force, therefore, appointment letters were rightly not issued to them. The order of the High Court was challenged before this Court. While dismissing the appeal this Court in Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2008) 2 SCC 161] noticed the disturbing feature of non-cooperation by the Commission in the Vigilance Enquiries and held as under: "...we only hope and trust that a constitutional authority like the Commission should neither withhold any document nor refuse to cooperate with the State Vigilance Bureau in the matter of conduct of an inquiry. If the statements made by the Commission are correct, they have nothing to hide. It would be in the interest of all concerned including the appellants herein to see that the inquiry should be completed at an early date." It was argued that despite directions/observations of the Court still complete cooperation was not extended and there was conscious decision taken by the private respondents, as the Chairman and Members of the Commission, not to cooperate in the investigation which can be inferred as an intention to cover up their own commissions and omissions including mal practices i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial on record to justify the issuance of search warrant under Section 93(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that the State had the right to get the records from the Commission for the purpose of investigation and on latter's failure, the provisions of Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were rightly invoked. It observed that the Commission is a constitutional authority and it would not be in the fitness of things that a search is conducted in its office, but such a situation has been created by it. Liberty was granted to the Commission to produce documents, records before the Investigating Officer, Inspector of Police, Vigilance (Ambala Range). Despite such unambiguous and clear directions of the Court, the Commission, acting through the private respondents failed to hand over the records but chose to prefer an SLP before this Court being SLP (Crl.) No. 3649 of 2008. This Court on 16th May, 2008, granted stay of the operation of the High Court's order. However, the matter continued to be pending for a considerable time before this Court and this SLP was ultimately withdrawn vide order dated 14th December, 2009. In the meanwhile, as already stated, f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch less protects the constitutional stature of the Commission. PW6, P. Raghvendra Rao, in his detailed affidavit, at the very outset, denied the suggestion that FIRs were registered as a result of political vendetta. According to him, there were various complaints received by the Government which were examined and FIRs were registered in accordance with law. He has further stated that despite requests in writing and otherwise, records were not provided and when records were provided it has come to light that there has been manipulation and interpolation in the answer sheets and the entire selection process adopted by the Commission through private respondents for selection to various posts in the State cadre was arbitrary and contrary to rules. In the case of appointment to the post of Environmental Engineer and Assistant Environmental Engineer certain candidates were selected by the Commission, who admittedly were over age. The recruitment rules in question and the advertisement had not empowered the Commission to grant any relaxation in age limit. Despite that the Commission, while recommending the names, issued a corrigendum and made a reference for ex-post-facto approval fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... scored out in a different ink and were reduced to 68. This candidate had got 16 marks for writing an answer to question No.7. The figure of 16 marks was scored out and instead the candidate was given `0' mark for the same. We have perused the answer to this question. Compared with answers given by other candidates, who have been awarded 16 or even more marks, the answer cannot be termed in any way inferior to the answer of the other candidates. Thus there appears to be no justification, whatsoever, for awarding 0 mark in place of 16 marks, which were originally awarded. Similarly, in the same paper a candidate with Sr. No. 1732 was original awarded, in all, 95 marks which were reduced to 84 by re-awarding marks in the answers to three different questions. Neither the figure of 84 in the tabulated statement for awarding marks nor any of the reduced marks in three questions are initialed by any examiner or appropriate authority. In Haryana Judicial Service Examination the candidate having Sr. No. 0150 had originally been awarded 58 marks which were reduced to 48 without any revaluation of the answer sheet. A note was written at the back of the first page of the answer sheet to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the image of the Commission has been lowered in the eyes of the public and the rule of fairness and merit has been substantially ignored in processes of selection for different posts. It is true, and as argued on behalf of the private respondents, that there is no direct evidence before us to show that these manipulations have actually been carried out by the private respondents but it is equally true that they, being the Chairman and Members of the Commission, were duty bound to exercise proper administrative control to ensure judicious and fair selection and prevent any act of commission or omission which would diminish public confidence in the functioning of the constitutional body. The claim of privilege for non-production of documents lacks bona fide and was, primarily, intended to withhold the records from the Investigating Agencies to cover up the above misdeeds, irregularities and illegalities. Another pertinent document, which has been placed on record of this Court, is the report prepared by the counsel appearing in the case, under the interim order of the Court passed on 14th January, 2008 in Civil Writ Petition No.15390 of 2002 in the case of Karan Singh Dalal & Ors.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings, which has been produced before this Court with affidavit or even without affidavit, has not caused any prejudice to the private respondents. First, they had full opportunity of defending themselves in the inquiry and second, they were parties in the proceedings before the High Court. The production of records, along with affidavit including the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, can be taken note of in this inquiry. Of course, reference to these proceedings is limited to the purpose of examining the veracity of the evidence produced by the State in support of approved articles of charge other than charges 6 and 7 which are beyond the scope of Presidential Reference. We, certainly, are not expressing any view whether, on the basis of these statements, private respondents are even prima facie guilty of any offence in relation to those two charges. It is clear from the record that the private respondents chose to lead no evidence during the inquiry before this Court. It was expected of the respondents to render some explanation in their defence in respect of the allegations stated in the Presidential Reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our of graver nature. On a holistic view of the matter, it is apparent that irregularities and acts of irresponsibility committed by the private respondents delineate their misbehaviour in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution as it certainly lowers the dignity of the Commission. The burden of proof applicable to such cases is not that required under the criminal jurisprudence, i.e., to prove the charge `beyond any reasonable doubt'. Where the facts supported by record point a finger at the Chairman/Member of the Commission with some certainty, it may amount to misbehaviour in the given facts and circumstances of a case. Rule of `reasonable preponderance of probabilities' would be the right standard to be applied to such cases. The Court is not called upon to record finding of guilt as if in a criminal case. The charge has to be construed in a liberal manner so as to ensure completion of inquiry in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution while keeping in mind the constitutional stature of the office. The private respondents were certainly in a position to prevent most of the events which have occurred in the present case and have tarnished the image of the Comm....