| Headnote |
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 317(1)- Reference to Supreme Court for inquiry into allegations of misbehaviour against Chairman/Members .of a Public· Service Commission - Nature of the proceedings. Standard of proof- HELD: The proceedings are neither akin to those under service law nor to those under criminal law - The nature of such proceedings is sui generis and the Court can evolve its own procedure in consonance with the language of Article 317 (1) read with the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules and the principles of natural justice - The standard of proof applicable to such cases is not that required under the criminal jurisprudence, i.e., to prove the charge E 'beyond any reasonable doubt'- 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) while keeping . in mind the constitutional stature of the office - 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 - Doctrines - Rule of 'reasonable preponderance of probabilities' - Maxim 'Qui non prohibit quod prohibere potest facere videtur' - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Or. 38, Part IV, Or. 47, r 6 - lnherent powers of Supreme Court. Article 317(1) - Reference to Supreme Court - Framing of articles of charge - HELD: The jurisdiction being of limited scope, Supreme Court cannot frame such entirely new articles of charge which have no link, connection or are not explanatory to the original charges stated in the Reference - However, the Court can examine additional facts/subsequent events having a direct bearing, as well as additional or supplementary articles of charge which are explanatory or intrinsically related to the charges specified in the Reference. Article 317(1) - Removal of Chairman/Member of a Public Service Commission 'on the ground of misbehavior' - Allegations against the Chairman/Members of improper selection of a candidate on the basis of bogus certificate which led to their arrest and prosecution for various offences under /PC and Prevention of Corruption Act - The expressions 'misbehaviour' (Art. 317(1)), 'proved misbehaviour' (Article 124) and 'misconduct' (Article 311) - Explained - HELD: The expression 'on the ground of misbehaviour' is an expression of wide connotation and cannot be given a restricted meaning - It should be understood keeping in view the nature of the misbehaviour complained of, the office in question and the standard expected to be maintained by the constitutional body in discharge of its functions - The 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 - In the instant case, the conduct of the Chairman/Members of the Commission in processing the application of the . candidate concerned and selecting him does not meet the standards of behaviour, integrity and rectitude required to be · maintained by the office they were holding - Their behaviour in this regard would certainly fall within the ambit of misbehaviour justifying their removal from service. Article 317(1) -Allegations against Chairman/Members of a Public Service Commission of withholding the information required in the investigation into the charges of illegal and improper selections made by the Commission, and despite directions by courts, refusing to cooperate in the investigation - Claim of privilege and immunity - HELD: It has been established that there was definite non·cooperation on the part of the Chairman/Members of the Commission in furnishing records and documents to the investigating agencies and this attitude of the persons concerned and claim of privilege lacks bona fides - High Court has clearly held that the claim of privilege for non-production of documents with reference to ss. 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act was not sustainable - State had the right to get the records from the Commission for the purpose of investigation and on latter's failure, provisions of s.93 CrPC were rightly invoked- The SLP challenging the order of High Court naving been dismissed, the order inter se the parties had attained finality and, keeping in view the doctrine, 'estoppel per rem judicatum', it is impermissible to examine such an order- Further, there has been an abuse of the office of Chairman and Members of the Commission, by the respondents, by withholding the material records, passing resolutions contrary to law, filing incorrect replies in judicial proceedings and committing manipulations/ interpolations in regard to answer·sheets of the candidates - They are guilty of misbehaviour on this count as well - Doctrine, 'estoppel per rem judicatum' - Judicial propriety - Evidence Act 1872- ss.123 and 124. Articles 317(1) r/w Article 316- Reference for removal of Chairman/Members of a Public Service Commission on the ground that their qualifications, experience and stature were not of the required standard and their appointments were made with a view to ensure that they would. further the objectives of the party in power - HELD: There is no constitutional requirement of any particular academic qualification for appointment as Official/Non-official Member of the Commission - On facts, it cannot be said that the incumbents were guilty of misbehaviour on this count. Article 316 - Appointment of Chairman/Members of a Public Service Commission - Desirability of providing qualification or experience - HELD · /s a function of Parliament and it would not be in consonance with the constitutional scheme that Supreme Court should venture into reading any specific qualifications in Article 316 or provide any specific guidelines in this regard - However, keeping in view the number of cases referred to Supreme Court in terms of Article 317(1) in recent years itself needs the attention of Parliamentarians and the quarters concerned to this aspect. Evidence: Proceedings under Article 317(1) of the Constitution - Record of judicial proceedings, to which the respondents were parties, produced before Supreme Court - HELD: Production of such material has not caused any prejudice to the respondents - They had full opportunity to defend themselves in the inquiry- They were granted liberty to rebut the evidence led against them but they did not do so - The reply filed by them is vague and ex facie unsatisfactory. Administrative Law: Public functionaries - Chairman/Members of a Public Service Commission - Accepting of application after the last date - Manipulation in the date of its receipt - Selection of the candidate on the basis of bogus certificate - HELD: Public Service Commissions are expected to adopt a fair and judicious process of selection to ensure that deserving and meritorious candidates are inducted in State services - In the instant case, the process adopted by the Commission, its Chairman and Members was not in consonance with the known canons of administrative jurisprudence - The conduct of Chairman and Members not Of only shows omissions and commissions on their part, but administrative lapses as well- Constitution of India, 1950- Article 317(1). |
