Holding

The Court held that the allegations against Ms. Bage do not constitute misbehaviour under Article 317 and she should not be removed, with her suspension revoked.

Summary

The President of India referred a matter under Article 317(1) of the Constitution seeking the removal of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), alleging misbehaviour in connection with the leakage of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination question paper in August 2022. An inquiry committee examined the incident but made no specific adverse findings against Ms. Bage, merely recommending procedural improvements. The Supreme Court examined whether the six charges framed against her amounted to misbehaviour, considered the relevance of collective versus individual responsibility, and evaluated the evidentiary threshold required for removal under Article 317. Finding no direct evidence linking Ms. Bage to the leak or any specific lapse attributable to her, the Court held that the allegations did not meet the threshold of misbehaviour or even lapse. Consequently, the Court recommended that her suspension be revoked and that she retain all benefits, concluding that the reference should be answered in her favour.

Issues considered

Whether Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage's conduct constitutes ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317 of the Constitution warranting her removal.
Whether the charges framed in the reference are sufficiently specific and proved.
Whether the principle of collective responsibility can be invoked against an individual member of a Public Service Commission.
Whether there was a non‑application of mind by the authorities in making the reference under Article 317.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 145, s. Article 316, s. Article 317, s. Article 319(d)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 120-B, s. Section 406, s. Section 407, s. Section 409, s. Section 420
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. Section 13(2), s. Section 7, s. Section 8
Supreme Court Rules, 2013s. Order XLIII Rule 5

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Leakage of question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), on 26th and 27th August, 2022, led to the present reference by the Hon’ble President of India under Constitution of India, for inquiry and report as to whether Respondent (Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage) ought to be removed as member of APPSC on grounds of misbehaviour. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 317(1) – Leakage of question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains

Subjects

Constitutional LawArticle 317MisbehaviourPublic Service CommissionAPPSCCivil ServantsRemoval ProcedurePresidential ReferenceQuestion Paper LeakageAssistant Engineer ExaminationConfidentiality in RecruitmentCollective ResponsibilityIndividual LiabilityInstitutional FailureJudicial ControlInquiry CommitteeFact-Finding InquiryConstitutional SafeguardsAutonomy of CommissionsIndependence of PSCStandards of ConductIntegrityQuasi-Judicial FunctionsLapses versus MisbehaviourVagueness of ChargesBurden of ProofNatural JusticeSuspension of MemberRole of GovernorRole of PresidentRole of Attorney GeneralWork Allocation OrderExamination Guidelines 2017Examination Guidelines 2022Collective Decision-MakingMoral ResponsibilityPrecedents on MisbehaviourConstitutional TrustPublic ConfidenceSupreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2227 : 2025 INSC 1047

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
(Ref. U/A 317(1) No. 1 of 2023)
28 August 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Leakage of question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains
Examination conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission (APPSC), on 26th and 27th August, 2022, led to
the present reference by the Hon’ble President of India under
Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, for inquiry and report
as to whether Respondent (Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage) ought to
be removed as member of APPSC on grounds of misbehaviour.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 317(1) – Leakage of question paper
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by
the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) –
Reference u/Art.317(1) of Constitution – Whether Respondent
ought to be removed as member of APPSC on grounds of
misbehaviour:
Held: In the present case, one can see that from the very inception,
from the report of the Inquiry Committee, no specific allegation
against the Respondent qua any of the six charges was levelled –
Chapter 7 of this report, which forms the very basis of the present
reference, merely makes some suggestions for improvement in
the functioning of the APPSC and to adopt best practices – But
it makes no adverse comment or personal indictment against the
Respondent – In the present case, the letter of the Chief Minister
to the Governor dated 27.10.2022 as well as letter of the Hon’ble
Governor to the Hon’ble President of India dated 02.12.2022 impute
responsibility for the leakage of the question paper for the Mains
Examination upon the members of the Commission even though
there was no such finding in the Inquiry Report – These letters
further make it clear that the State dealt with the matter with a
prejudice that the Members of the Commission were responsible for

* Author
2228 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the paper leakage without sufficient material or evidence to reach
such a conclusion – The actions alleged against the Respondent
do not meet the threshold of ‘misbehaviour’, rather, they do not
even meet the threshold of ‘lapse’ which has a lower threshold – It
is not a case where the Respondent was unable to maintain the
standard of conduct expected of a Member of a Commission and
her actions alone brought disrepute to the APPSC – No overt act
by her has been shown to meet the threshold of misbehaviour –
When there is no evidence linking the Respondent to the leakage
of the question paper of the Mains Examination, summarily
holding her responsible and seeking to remove her from office
on the pretext of not maintaining confidentiality in the work of the
Commission, it would further erode the roots of the Constitutional
intent of Article 317 to protect the Members of the Public Service
Commission from political pressure – Reference made by the
Hon’ble President of India for the charges as alleged are not based
on specific allegations against the Respondent in her individual or
official capacity – Allegations which are general in nature, have not
even been substantiated by bringing any cogent evidence and as
such the allegations have not been found proved in the fact-finding
enquiry conducted in exercise of powers under Art.145(1)(j) of the
Constitution of India read with Order XLIII of the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 – Allegations of charges as made in the reference have
not been proved – In terms of Order XLIII Rule 5 of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 and answering the reference under Article 317(1)
of the Constitution of India, this report with recommendation shall be
sent to the Hon’ble President of India that the charges as alleged
do not bring about any act of ‘misbehaviour’ by Respondent for
taking action within its contours – It is further recommended that
her suspension be revoked forthwith and she would be entitled to
all consequential and monetary benefits. [Paras 75-78, 80]

Constitution of India – Art.317 – Removal and suspension
of a member of Public Service Commission – What may
constitute ‘misbehaviour’ under Art.317 of the Constitution –
External aids to discern the meaning – Constituent Assembly
Debates – Reports of Supreme Court in previous references
and judgements – Misbehaviour & Misconduct through the
lens of Legal Dictionaries – Discussed.
Held: The Supreme Court, when called upon to decide a reference
under Article 317 of the Constitution of India, must embark on
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2229

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

a fact-finding inquiry to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in
the facts and circumstances of that case, the allegations against
the Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission would
amount to misbehaviour – Misbehaviour has been interpreted to
have a larger ambit than misconduct at a somewhat normative
level – Every misconduct might be considered a misbehaviour
but not every misbehaviour amounts to misconduct, since even
acts which bring disrepute to the office of the Public Service
Commission have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to
be misbehaviour – Instances of physical violence between the
members, non-declaration of relatives participating in a recruitment
process conducted by the Commission and attempting to influence
the Commission to favour a particular candidate have all been
considered as instances of ‘misbehaviour’ by the Supreme Court –
Supreme Court has therefore given an extensive, wide and liberal
interpretation to the term ‘misbehaviour’ – Even though, generally,
Supreme Court has negatived allegations of misbehaviour against
members of a Public Service Commission on account of lack of
direct evidence linking such member to irregularities alleged,
but where for instance in Mehar Singh Saini, on the basis of
evidence the inaction and lack of due diligence of the Commission
is absolutely glaring at a prima facie level and palpably illegal
and reeks of favouritism, the Court has taken a view that even
though there might be no direct evidence linking the members
to the irregularities alleged, the responsibility of the members of
the Commission cannot be washed away – Construction of the
language used in Article 317 of the Constitution, if given a plain
reading, however, makes it clear that removal and suspension of
a member of a Public Service Commission is in personam and
not of the entire Public Service Commission or its members as
a collective entity – Inquiry and eventual recommendation for
removal, if any, must be specific to the conduct of a particular
office-bearer with respect to any act or omission constituting
‘misbehaviour’ done in their official capacity – For proving
‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317 of the Constitution, in order to
remove a Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission
upon reference being made by the Hon’ble President of India, it
is generally necessary to demonstrate with cogent material as
per the procedure laid down that the conduct complained of and
charges formulated are attributable to the individual in question.
[Paras 41, 42]
2230 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Constitutional bodies – Public Service Commission – Office
of Chairman of Public service Commission and its Members –
Significance of:
Held: The Public Service Commission is a Constitutional body
which must, on one hand, be completely independent and without
any obligation towards the Executive while on the other hand, its
Chairman and members must be beyond reproach, with exemplary
ethical and moral standards, in order to retain the faith of the
common man in the process of selection and appointments to public
offices – These Commissions were established as independent
constitutional bodies to ensure that the process of recruitment in
public service became insulated from political pressure and that
recruitment to public administrative posts is conducted with utmost
fairness and transparency – Their role is not merely administrative
but also constitutional in nature, as they serve as sentinels of
public trust in the civil service system – It is imperative for a Public
Service Commission to discharge its duties with utmost impartiality,
free from any extraneous and suspect influences that could
compromise its integrity – Chairperson and Members of a Public
Service Commission must conform to a standard of conduct that is
unimpeachable in the eyes of law – Their actions, decisions, and
even omissions must reflect the fairness, and highest degree of
integrity inherent in these constitutional offices. [Paras 43, 44, 46]

Constitution of India – Art.317(1) – Reference under – Scope
and object – Discussed:
Held: Article 317 of the Constitution of India has been enshrined in
the Constitution of India to afford greater protection to the Members
of the Commission – The members, serving on an upper mantle,
are susceptible to political pressure, and in order to safeguard them
from the whims of the powers of the day, the Constituent Assembly,
in their endless wisdom, had laid forth an elaborate procedure for
their removal – Members of Public Service Commission can only
be removed strictly by complying the rigour of Article 317 of the
Constitution of India, and not through any regular departmental
inquiry, thereby acting as a qualification on the doctrine of pleasure
that is exercised by the President regarding various constitutional
posts. [Para 18]

Words and Phrases – “misbehaviour” and “misconduct” –
Misbehaviour is different from misconduct.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2231

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

Held: Misconduct has an element of mens rea, whereas
misbehaviour may include any conduct on part of the member
which does not align with standards of the office – Misconduct may
include graver acts or omissions whereas misbehaviour refers to
a conduct which has the potential to destroy the faith in a public
office. [Para 38]

Case Law Cited
Ram Ashray Yadav (Dr.), Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, In R/o (Special Reference No. 1 of 1997) [2000] 2
SCR 688 : (2000) 4 SCC 309; Reference Under Article 317(1) of
the Constitution of India, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
(Reference No. 1 of 2006) [2009] 10 SCR 470 : (2009) 8 SCC
41 – relied on.
Mehar Singh Saini, In re (Reference No. 2 of 2008) [2010] 14
SCR 647 : (2010) 13 SCC 586 – distinguished.
Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, In re,
(Special Reference No. 1 of 1983) [1983] 3 SCR 639 : (1983) 4
SCC 258; Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of
India, In re, (Special Reference No. 1 of 1983) (1990) 4 SCC 262;
Sher Singh, In Re (Reference Case No. 1 of 1995) [1997] 1 SCR
654 : (1997) 3 SCC 216; Sayalee Sajeev Joshi (Smt), Member,
Maharashtra Public Service Commission, In Re (Reference No.
1 of 2004) [2007] 7 SCR 116 : (2007) 11 SCC 547; Reference
under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, In re, (Reference
No. 1 of 2003) [2008] 15 SCR 1000 : (2009) 1 SCC 337; C.
Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee [1995] Supp. 3
SCR 319 : (1995) 5 SCC 457; Krishna Swami v. Union of India
[1992] Supp. 1 SCR 53 : (1992) 4 SCC 605; Common Cause v.
Union of India [1999] 3 SCR 1279 : (1999) 6 SCC 667; State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India [2018] 7 SCR 1 : (2018) 8 SCC
501 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Constituent Assembly Debates CAD, Vols.9, 11; Black’s Law
Dictionary, 6th Edn., pp.998 and 999; Encyclopedic Law Dictionary,
3rd Edn., p.720; Advanced Law Lexicon, 7th Edn., 2024 by P.
Ramanatha Aiyar – referred to.
2232 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

List of Keywords
Constitutional Law; Article 317; Misbehaviour; Public Service
Commission; APPSC; Civil Servants; Removal Procedure;
Presidential Reference; Question Paper Leakage; Assistant
Engineer Examination; Confidentiality in Recruitment; Collective
Responsibility; Individual Liability; Institutional Failure; Judicial
Control; Inquiry Committee; Fact-Finding Inquiry; Constitutional
Safeguards; Autonomy of Commissions; Independence of PSC;
Standards of Conduct; Integrity; Quasi-Judicial Functions; Lapses
versus Misbehaviour; Vagueness of Charges; Burden of Proof;
Natural Justice; Suspension of Member; Role of Governor; Role
of President; Role of Attorney General; Work Allocation Order;
Examination Guidelines 2017; Examination Guidelines 2022;
Collective Decision-Making; Moral Responsibility; Precedents on
Misbehaviour; Constitutional Trust; Public Confidence; Supreme
Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
ADVISORY JURISDICTION: REF. U/A 317(1) No. 1 of 2023

Appearances for Parties

By Courts Motion
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
R Venkatramani, AGI, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Manish Goswami, Sr.
Adv., Shailesh Madiyal, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Raman Yadav,
Chitvan Singhal, Abhishek Kr Pandey, Kartikay Aggarwal, Mukesh
Kr Singh, Ameyvikrama Thanvi, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal,
Gaurav Shukla, N Sriraman, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Arvind
Kumar Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Rituraj Biswas, Mayan Prasad, Sushil
Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Ms. Japneet Kaur, Ms. Vriti Gujarat,
Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Abhishek Bhardwaj, Ms. Sujana Bardhan,
Ms. Anshula Grover.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2233

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Report

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

CONSPECTUS
1. It is a fact well-known that Civil Servants are indispensable to the
governance of the country. The responsibility of efficiently and
diligently implementing the laws has been bestowed upon them. Well
thought of and planned policies can crumble, like a sandcastle, at
the first hit of waves, if there isn’t a strong administration in place
to implement them. In a lot of ways, the Civil Servants are the
ambassadors of democracy; the first point of contact between the
citizenry and the government. It is through them that the government
is able to successfully implement the countless welfare schemes for
the larger good of the public. It wouldn’t be out of place to note that
the robust functioning of democracy lies steadfast on their shoulders.
2. While the Framers of the Constitution recognized the prominence of
the Civil Services in India, they were also keenly aware that these
officers could be susceptible to the political powers of the day.
Paramount pressure and burgeoning expectations of the citizens are
some of the regular challenges that these civil servants are plagued
with. It was to safeguard these officers from harsh rigours that come
with a demanding job that the Constitution Framers envisaged the
setting up of autonomous and independent bodies like the Public
Service Commission at the Centre and in the States. Led by eminent
members nominated by the government, these bodies govern the
recruitment of civil servants and play a significant advisory role in
their appointments, promotions, and disciplinary actions. To ensure
these bodies remain completely impartial and free from any influence
or outside pressure, Article 317 of the Constitution prescribes a
stringent procedure for the removal of their members.
3. This is a reference made by the Hon’ble President of India under
Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, pertaining to the unfortunate
tale of one such member who came to be nominated to a State Public
Service Commission and was caught in the crosshairs of allegations
and accusations of misbehaviour, for inquiry and report as to whether
2234 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Respondent – Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, (hereinafter referred to
as “Respondent”), Member of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as “APPSC”) ought to be
removed as a member of APPSC on the grounds of misbehaviour.
4. The tipping point of the matter is the leakage of the question paper
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by the
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, on 26th and 27th
August, 2022, leading to the reference for the removal of Ms. Bage,
who was a member of the APPSC at the relevant time. Broadly, the
facts giving rise to the present reference have been laid forth as under.

FACTS
5. The Respondent was appointed as a member of APPSC on 12.08.2021
under Article 316(1) of the Constitution of India, and assumed charge
on 13.08.2021. As per Article 316(2) of the Constitution of India, a
member of the APPSC shall hold office for a term of six years from
the date on which he/she enters office or until attaining the age of 62
years, whichever is earlier. The APPSC consisted of five Members
including the Chairman. On 18.08.2021, the Chairman of APPSC
delineated the duties of the Respondent.
6. In the calendar year 2022, on 26.08.2022 and 27.08.2022, the
APPSC conducted the Mains Examination for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) (hereinafter referred to as “Mains Examination”). On
28.08.2022, one of the candidates for the said examination, namely
Mr. Gyamar Padang, submitted a formal complaint to the Officer-in-
Charge of Police Station, Itanagar, alleging that some questions of the
paper for the said examination were leaked in advance by APPSC in
conspiracy with certain coaching institutes, which were accessible to
some candidates including him beforehand, and therefore requested
to lodge an FIR. On 29.08.2022, he further informed the Secretary,
APPSC regarding such leakage, and requested for stay on declaration
of the results until a thorough and fair enquiry has been conducted.
7. Subsequently, in light of the complaint, on 10.09.2022, FIR bearing
No. 229/2022 was registered at Police Station, Itanagar under Sections
120-B, 420, 406, 407, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
one teacher, Mr. Akhilesh Yadav of a coaching institute. APPSC
cancelled the Preliminary and Mains Examination on 20.09.2022.
Concerned with such allegations, the matter was transferred to the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2235

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

Special Investigation Cell (Vigilance) (hereinafter referred to as “SIC
(Vigilance)”) for further inquiry on 27.09.2022 and renumbered as
SIC Vigilance PS Case No. 11/2022 and Sections 7, 8 and 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also invoked in addition
to offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, on
26.10.2022, it was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”)
and renumbered as Case No. RC0172022A0009.
8. Further complaints were filed with SIC (Vigilance) regarding possible
leakages in earlier examinations, alleging the involvement of
APPSC members, which were also transferred to CBI for collective
investigation. To address the magnitude of the allegations, during
pendency of the criminal proceedings, the Government of Arunachal
Pradesh on 21.09.2022 constituted a Three-member High-level
Inquiry Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Inquiry Committee”)
to probe into the irregularities in the Mains Examination. The relevant
portion of the terms of reference of the Committee is quoted below: -
“The terms of Reference of the Committee shall be as
under: -
(i) To inquire into all aspects of the incident of leakage
of question paper in the APPSC exam held on 26th and
27th August 2022;
(ii) To inquire if the standard operating procedures including
setting of question papers and design of question paper
booklets were followed;
(iii) To inquire into the lapses on the part of officers / officials
involved directly / indirectly in the recruitment process;
(iv) To recommend changes in the recruitment process
including Standard Operating Procedures followed by the
Commission;
(v) To recommend appropriate modifications in the selection
process of officials deputed in APPSC and
(vi) To make recommendations on any other related
issues.”
9. From a bare perusal of these terms of reference, it is abundantly
clear that from the very inception of the Inquiry Committee formed
2236 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

by the State Government to probe into the irregularities in the Mains
Examination, no specific term of reference was formulated in respect
of the actions of the Chairman or Members of the APPSC.
10. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 06.10.2022, pointing
out lapses in Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as “SOP”) with regard to maintaining the secrecy of the question
papers for the Mains Examination and other lacunae, and concluded
that the SOP and the APPSC Conduct of Examination Guidelines,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as “2017 Guidelines”) have not been
followed by the APPSC. Meanwhile, on 14.10.2022, the Chairman of
the APPSC resigned on moral grounds. The State Government after
the receipt of the inquiry report deliberated on the possible actions and
sought legal opinion of the Ld. Advocate General of the State, who
on 27.10.2022 opined to invoke Article 317(1) of the Constitution of
India. Observing this, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh
on the same day requested the Hon’ble Governor of Arunachal
Pradesh to place the matter before the Hon’ble President of India
for making reference under Article 317(1) to the Supreme Court for
removal of the four members of the APPSC. In the meanwhile, three
members, namely, Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Jarken Gamlin and Maj. Gen.
(Retd.) Ganesh Singh Bisht on 27.10.2022 and Mr. Tsering Naksang
on 31.10.2022, tendered their resignations. Hence, the Respondent
herein was the only remaining member of the APPSC. Thereafter, on
02.12.2022, the Hon’ble Governor of the State requested the Hon’ble
President of India to make a reference to the Supreme Court of India
for initiating proceedings under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of
India for removal of the petitioner.
11. Meanwhile, the CBI filed a chargesheet on 08.12.2022 and
supplementary chargesheets on 30.01.2023 and 28.03.2023, wherein
the Respondent was not named as an accused. The investigation
disclosed that Mr. Taket Jerang, the Deputy Secretary-cum-Deputy
Controller of Examinations (DCoE), APPSC is primarily responsible
for the leakage of the Mains Examination paper. It was revealed that
he accepted a huge monetary consideration from several private
persons for supply of question papers for the subject examination. The
scheme involved tampering with sealed packets, copying papers, and
resealing them with the aid of one Mr. Dilip Saha, a representative
of printer Blessings Secured Press Private Limited, responsible for
printing the question papers.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2237

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

12. On 18.04.2023, the Hon’ble President of India made a reference to
this Court under Article 317(1) for removal of the Respondent on six
charges as quoted below: -
“I. That the question paper of AE (Civil) Main examination
2022 was allegedly leaked in connivance with the
functionaries of the Commission. Ms. Mepung Tadar
Bage, along with the Chairman and other Members of the
Commission failed to prevent the leak of question papers
and to ensure the confidentiality in the Commission’s
working.
II. It is a matter of fact that multiple question papers for
various examinations were set by the Commission since
2017 about all of which, serious doubts in regard to their
leakage have arisen on the basis of complaints and that
this called for effecting changes in the relevant guidelines.
III. If remedial action had been taken in good time by
relevant changes in the examination guidelines and
ensuring vigil and supervision, the leak in the year 2022
could have been avoided.
IV. Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, had a collective responsibility
along with Chairman and other Members of the Commission,
to ensure the confidentiality in Commission’s working, Ms.
Mepung Tadar Bage being the Member looking after all
legal matters as per allocation of work, was under an
exclusive responsibility which she failed to discharge.
V. The Commission did not finalize the conduct of
examination guidelines 2022, despite being aware of the
fact that this was last done in 2017. As a Member looking
after legal matters, it was Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage’s
bounden duty to have the Commission address the subject
of changes in the guidelines.
VI. In June, 2022, the Commission decided to keep in
abeyance, its own orders related to punishment awarded
to candidates found using unfair means. Similarly, it was
the duty of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage to advise against
keeping the above said orders in abeyance.”
2238 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

13. After the reference, the Respondent was placed under suspension
on 15.06.2023 by order of the Hon’ble Governor of the State in
accordance with Article 317(2) of the Constitution of India.
14. On receiving the reference, notice was issued to the Attorney General
of India, the Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh
and the Respondent. After filing the written statement on 02.11.2023
by the Respondent, an order was passed on 03.11.2023 to exchange
the points for determination of this reference. Pursuant to this, on
07.02.2024, a joint statement of issues agreed to by the counsels
of both the parties (APPSC and the Respondent respectively) and
settled by the Attorney General of India was submitted before this
Court. Accordingly, on 16.02.2024, this Court formulated the following
issues for consideration: -
“1. Whether the conduct of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage the
subject of reference, can be considered as ‘misbehaviour’
within the meaning of Article 317 of the Constitution by
reason of her failure towards ensuring complete integrity in
all matters relating to the AE mains examination conducted
by Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
(APPSC) in August, 2022, and as such is liable to be
removed as a member?
2. Whether the alleged vagueness of charges raised on
behalf of the respondent-member can be an issue in the
enquiry under Article 317 of the Constitution?
3. Whether there is any scope or room for raising the
question of nonapplication of mind by any authority
preceding the request for Reference made by the Hon’ble
President of India under Article 317 of the Constitution?
4. Whether all the Charges are duly proved against the
Respondent?”
15. After the formulation of the issues, counsel for both the parties filed
their list of witnesses. As directed vide order dated 09.07.2024, the
evidence was recorded by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court which
concluded on 20.09.2024 and the reference was placed for hearing
before this Court.
16. Prior to adverting to the issues as framed, it is essential to refer
to Article 317 of the Constitution of India which deals with removal
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2239

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

and suspension of the Chairman or Member of a Public Service
Commission. The said Article is reproduced as under: -
“Article – 317. Removal and suspension of a member
of a Public Service Commission.
1. Subject to the provisions of clause (3), the Chairman or
any other member of a Public Service Commission shall
only be removed from his office by order of the President
on the ground of misbehaviour after the Supreme Court,
on reference being made to it by the President, has, on
inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed
in that behalf under article 145, reported that the Chairman
or such other member, as the case may be, ought on any
such ground to be removed.
2. The President, in the case of the Union Commission or a
Joint Commission, and the Governor in the case of a State
Commission, may suspend from office the Chairman or
any other member of the Commission in respect of whom
a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under
clause (1) until the President has passed orders on receipt
of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.
3. Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), the President
may by order remove from office the Chairman or any other
member of a Public Service Commission if the Chairman
or such other member, as the case may be, —
a. is adjudged an insolvent; or
b. engages during his term of office in any
paid employment outside the duties of his
office; or
c. is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to
continue in office by reason of infirmity of
mind or body.
4. If the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service
Commission is or becomes in any way concerned or
interested in any contract or agreement made by or on
behalf of the Government of India or the Government of
a State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or
2240 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise
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.”
17. Article 317 of the Constitution of India specifies that the Chairman
or any other member of a Public Service Commission shall only
be removed by an order of the Hon’ble President of India on the
ground of misbehaviour. The said misbehaviour may be proved by
inquiry before the Supreme Court of India following the procedure
prescribed in Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed
under Article 145(1)(j) of the Constitution of India and the report in this
regard shall be submitted to the Hon’ble President of India. Clause
4 of Article 317 of the Constitution of India specifies an example of
misbehaviour that if the Chairman or any other member of a Public
Service Commission becomes in any way concerned or interested
in any contract of agreement made on behalf of the Government
of India or the Government of a State or participates in any way in
profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom. In
addition to the above, what may be included within the expression
of ‘misbehaviour’ is required to be examined in the present context.
18. A careful reading of Article 317 of the Constitution of India and the
supporting judicial precedents shows that the said provision has been
enshrined in the Constitution of India to afford greater protection
to the Members of the Commission. The members, serving on an
upper mantle, are susceptible to political pressure, and in order
to safeguard them from the whims of the powers of the day, the
Constituent Assembly, in their endless wisdom, had laid forth an
elaborate procedure for their removal. Thus, the members of the
Public Service Commission can only be removed strictly by complying
the rigour of Article 317 of the Constitution of India, and not through
any regular departmental inquiry, thereby acting as a qualification on
the doctrine of pleasure that is exercised by the President regarding
various constitutional posts.
19. As per this provision, a member of the Commission can be removed
on two grounds – firstly, on the ground of misbehaviour, after the
President has made a reference to this Court, and in consonance
with the prescribed procedure, and secondly, by reason of automatic
disqualification under Articles 317(3) and 317(4) of the Constitution.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2241

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

The term “misbehaviour” has neither been defined in the Constitution,
nor has it been contradistinguished from the word “misconduct”. As
rules of Statutory Interpretation would govern the subject, however,
resort must be made to the judicial precedents and legal dictionaries
to cull out a meaning most befitting the circumstances of the instant
matter.

What may constitute ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317 of the
Constitution of India – previous references
20. There are multiple external aids available to the Courts to discern
the meaning of a specific provision. Constituent Assembly Debates
is one such external aid available to the Court to understand the
rationale behind a particular provision and interpreting that provision
in the light of the intention of the framers of the Constitution.

Constituent Assembly Debates
21. In the Constituent Assembly Debates, Dr. BR Ambedkar spoke thus
on misbehaviour (CAD, Vol. 9, pp. 574-575):
“With regard to misbehaviour the provision is somewhat
peculiar. The Honourable House will remember that in the
case of the removal of High Court Judges or the Judges of
the Supreme Court, it has been provided in the articles we
have already passed, that they hold their posts during good
behaviour, and they shall not be liable to be removed until
a resolution in that behalf is passed by both Chambers of
Parliament. It is felt that it is unnecessary to provide such
a stiff and severe provision for the removal of members of
the Public Service Commission. Consequently, it has been
provided in this article that the provisions contained in the
Government of India Act for the removal of the Judges of
the High Court would be sufficient to give as much security
and as much protection to the members of the Public
Service Commission. I think the House will remember
that in the provisions contained in the Government of
India Act, what is necessary for the removal of a Federal
Court Judge or a High Court Judge is an enquiry made
by the Federal Court in the case of the High Court Judges
or by the Privy Council in the case of the Federal Court
2242 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judges, and on a report being made that there has been
a case of misbehaviour, it is open to the Governor-General
to remove either the Federal Court Judge or the Judge
of the High Court. We have adopted the same provision
with regard to the removal of Public Service Commission,
wherever there is a case of misbehaviour.”
22. The President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad,
stated in unequivocal terms the following lines (CAD, Vol. 11,
pp. 990 - 991):
“Our Constitution has devised certain independent
agencies to deal with particular matters. Thus, it has
provided for Public Service Commission both for the
Union and for the States and placed such Commission on
an independent footing so that they may discharge their
duties without being influenced by the Executive. One of
the things against which we have to guard is that there
should be no room as far as it is humanly possible for
jobbery, nepotism and favouritism. I think the provisions
which we have introduced into our Constitution will be
very helpful in this direction.”
23. Mr. H.V. Kamath, another imminent member of the Constitutional
Assembly was of the following opinion (CAD, Vol. 9, pp. 586 - 587):
“It is agreed on all hands that the permanent services play
an important role in the administration of any country. With
the independence of our country the responsibilities of the
services have become more onerous. They may make
or mar the efficiency of the machinery of administration-
call it steel frame or what you will, - a machinery which
is so vital for the peace and progress of the country. A
country without an efficient Civil Service cannot make
progress in spite of the earnestness of those people at
the helm of affairs in the country. Wherever democratic
institutions exist experience has shown that it is essential
to protect the public Service as far as possible from
political or personal influence and to give it that position
of stability and security which is vital to its successful
working as an impartial and efficient instrument by which
Government-of whatever political complexion-may give
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2243

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

effect to their policies. It is imperative that whichever
Government comes into power, the permanent services
must carry out the policy laid down by the Government for
the time being in office. In countries where this principle
has been neglected, and where instead the spoils system
has taken its place, inefficient and disorganised Civil
Service has been the inevitable result and corruption has
become rampant with all its attendant consequences. It is
therefore of the utmost importance that the Public Service
Commissions that we contemplate under these articles
should be completely independent of the Government
of the day whether at the Centre or in the States.
Otherwise, I am afraid the Civil Services will apprehend
that amenability to Ministerial pressure and a correct
attitude towards questions in which a little coterie or
the group for the time being in power, is interested, will
secure them promotions rather than merit or efficiency.
I have often known that a Secretary to a Minister if he
volunteers an opinion which is not palatable to the Minister
in Office, the Minister puts him on the blacklist and he
is not considered favourably for future promotions. Of
course, once a policy is laid down the public servants
have to carry them out. But I know of instance where
Ministers have looked upon with disfavour Secretaries or
other servants, whose opinion was invited criticising their
policies: this is a very undesirable state of affairs and
I am sure that sort of thing should not be encouraged.
Therefore, I hold that where there is any apprehension
on the part of Civil Servants that, if they are amenable
to Ministerial pressure, they are likely to be promoted,
and that merit and efficiency countless, if that mentality
seizes public servants, there is likely to be demoralisation
throughout the ranks of the services.”
24. From the aforementioned excerpts of the constituent assembly
debates, we get a peek into the minds of the Framers and their
intention while framing Article 317. Their primary goal was to ensure
the autonomy and independence of the Public Service Commissions,
and to secure it, they prescribed an elaborate procedure for the
removal of its members.
2244 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Reports of this Court in previous references and judgements
25. In order to further understand the meaning of ‘misbehaviour’, guidance
may be taken from the previous reports. This Court had the first ever
occasion to deal with a reference under Article 317(1) of Constitution
of India – where a member of the Punjab Public Service Commission
was alleged to have slapped the Chairperson in the presence of
the other members. In Reference under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution of India, In re, (Special Reference No. 1 of 1983)
reported in (1983) 4 SCC 258 this Court dealt with the procedural
contours of an inquiry under Article 317 of the Constitution of India
and held that any allegation of misbehaviour against a member of
a Public Service Commission is to be looked into by the Supreme
Court on merits considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
“6. The power of the President to make a reference to this
Court under Article 317(1) is not subject to the condition
precedent that he must first have the facts examined by
some other body of authority. That Article provides that
the Chairman or any other Member of a Public Service
Commission can only be removed from his office on the
ground of misbehaviour after the Supreme Court on a
Reference made to it by the President reports that the
Chairman or such other person ought to be removed on
any such ground…

xx xx xx xx
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…
Members of Public Service Commissions are, in one sense,
given a higher degree of protection by the elimination, as
far as possible, of political pressures in the matter of their
removal. Any allegation of misbehaviour made against
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2245

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

them has to be examined by the Supreme Court on merits
unlike the allegations made against those others whose
removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity
depends upon the will of the Parliament…”
26. In the same Special Reference, the report on merits was delivered
subsequently and reported in (1990) 4 SCC 262 wherein this Court
held that by indulging in physical violence, the member of the
Public Service Commission had failed to maintain the standard of
conduct expected from a member of Public Service Commission
and such conduct would amount to ‘misbehaviour’ under Article
317 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraph has been
quoted herein: -
“31. Now the question is whether Sri Saini deserved to be
removed on account of his conduct. Persons occupying
high public offices should maintain irreproachable
behaviour. A certain minimum standard of code of conduct
is expected of them. What may be excusable for an
uneducated young man cannot be tolerated if a Member
of a Public Service Commission is involved. Besides, it has
to be remembered that the respondent and the Chairman
were not thrashing out a personal matter or a private
dispute. They were discussing a question involving their
office and this in broad daylight in the open corridor of the
Commission’s building. Whatever the provocation offered
by the Chairman, the respondent was not justified in losing
his cool to the extent of indulging in physical violence.
That the violence should have been directed against a
lady makes his conduct all the more reprehensible. In our
view, Sri Saini miserably failed in maintaining the standard
of conduct expected of a Member of the Commission and
thereby brought great disrepute to his office. Hence our
answer to the question referred by the President is that
Sri Saini’s conduct amounted to misbehaviour within the
meaning of Article 317(1) of the Constitution and it rendered
him liable to be removed from his office of the Member of
the Punjab Public Service Commission.”
27. This Court, in Sher Singh, In Re (Reference Case No. 1 of 1995)
reported in (1997) 3 SCC 216 had the occasion to deal with an allegation
2246 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

against a member of the Haryana Public Service Commission who
had allegedly attempted to influence the Commission in favour of his
nephew, a candidate in a competitive examination for recruitment
to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). This Court looked
through the entirety of evidence and primarily relied on the testimony
of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Public Service Commission
to hold that there was proof of the member trying to influence the
Commission in favour of his nephew and he had not declared that
his nephew was participating in the examination, which amounted
to misbehaviour.
“22. Shri Sher Singh repeatedly denies that he ever made
any approach to the Chairman to influence the result of
his nephew. He, however, admits that he never formally
declared to the Commission that his nephew was appearing
in the examination. Nor did he ever disassociate himself
from the said examination. His allegation that Shri Kataria
had worked at the instance of the then Chief Minister has
not been substantiated.
23. The entire evidence on record suggests that Shri Sher
Singh had some axe to grind. The testimony of Shri Kataria
and Shri Tuli that Shri Sher Singh wanted to influence the
result of his nephew read with all the other evidence on
record goes to prove that Shri Sher Singh did approach
Shri Kataria for favours for his nephew. The allegation
made in the resignation letter and extracted in the order
of Reference is, therefore, held to be proved.”
28. In Ram Ashray Yadav (Dr.), Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, In R/o (Special Reference No. 1 of 1997) reported
in (2000) 4 SCC 309, this Court dealt with multifarious allegations
of misbehaviour against the Chairman of the Bihar Public Service
Commission, and held that mere signing of a final selection list as
the Chairman, in discharge of official duties, would not imply that
he influenced the selection committee in favour of a candidate in
absence of specific material against him acting in such manner in
his personal, official or individual capacity. It was observed that while
the Chairman did not exhibit exemplary behaviour or conduct which
was expected of him, the allegations against him would amount to
lapses but it would not amount to ‘misbehaviour’ within the meaning
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2247

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

of Article 317 of the Constitution of India. The relevant part of the
report is reproduced as under: -
“21. A critical analysis of the judgment in Urmila Kumari
case [(1993) 1 Pat LJR 226] shows that while the
Commission, as a whole, was indicted, no adverse
comment of any personal nature had been made by
the High Court against the Chairman, Dr Yadav. There
is no specific indictment of the Chairman, Dr Yadav,
as such. There is no finding that Dr Yadav had in any
manner influenced the selection of Respondent 3 in that
case. It would be wholly conjectural to hold that merely
because Dr Yadav had signed the final selection list as
Chairman (which he was obliged to do in discharge of his
official duties), he should be deemed to have influenced
other members of the Selection Committee including the
outside experts. The indictment, even otherwise was of
the procedure which was followed by the Commission and
not of any action of the Chairman. We are informed that
after the judgment in Urmila Kumari case [(1993) 1 Pat
LJR 226] the procedure for selection has been modified and
corrected. In the absence of any indictment of Dr Yadav,
in his personal, official or individual capacity or any other
material to show that he had personally influenced the
Interview Committee (where he was not even present) to
act in a particular manner, it would be unfair to hold that Dr
Yadav had committed any misbehaviour in that selection
process. We agree with Dr Dhavan that no misfeasance on
the part of Dr Yadav has even been remotely established
insofar as this charge is concerned.

xx xx xx xx
33. Having dealt with all such charges, which the learned
Attorney General conceded alone required to be examined
and hearing learned counsel for the parties, we, however,
find that all does not appear to be well with the manner
of functioning of the Bihar Public Service Commission,
during the period under consideration. The Chairman of the
Commission, Dr Yadav, appears at times, did not exhibit
exemplary behaviour or conduct, expected of him, but none
2248 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the allegations which have been made against him in
various charges, which may, at best, amount to lapses,
can be said to be such which amount to “misbehaviour”
within the meaning of Article 317 of the Constitution inviting
action of his removal from office under Article 317(1).”
29. While dealing with the reference in the case of Sayalee Sajeev
Joshi (Smt), Member, Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
In Re (Reference No. 1 of 2004) reported in (2007) 11 SCC
547, this Court held that there was inadequate evidence to prove
that the member had colluded with a third party to influence the
Controller of Examination to favour some candidates in a recruitment
examination, but found that misbehaviour was proved only in respect
of Charge 3 that the member had not revealed that her daughter
had participated in a recruitment process while she was a member
of the Commission. While reaching such a finding, the Court relied
upon the previous decisions and defined the scope of enquiry to
be undertaken by the Court in a reference under Article 317 of the
Constitution of India.
“16. ..…The credibility of the institution of a Public Service
Commission is founded upon the faith of the common
man in its proper functioning. The faith would be eroded
and confidence destroyed if it appears that the Chairman
or the members of the Commission act subjectively and
not objectively or that their actions are suspect. Society
expects honesty, integrity and complete objectivity from
the Chairman and members of the Commission. The
Commission must act fairly, without any pressure or
influence from any quarter, unbiased and impartially,
so that the society does not lose confidence in the
Commission. The high constitutional trustees, like the
Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission
must forever remain vigilant and conscious of these
necessary adjuncts. The task of this Court therefore is
to find out as a fact whether the materials disclose a
conduct on the part of the respondent (a constitutional
functionary) which would be misbehaviour within the
meaning of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India.
Our approach to the reference in answering the charges
framed has to be on this basis…”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2249

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

30. Ultimately, this Court while deciding the above reference held as
follows: -
“48. The respondent was holding the position of a member
of a constitutional body having a higher status. It is not
possible to appreciate the stand of the respondent that
even while the employees and officers of the Commission
had an obligation to inform the Commission about the
appearance of their near relations in any examination
conducted by the Commission, no such obligation was
attached to a member of the Commission. May be, a
member of the Commission would not qualify as an
employee or as an officer of the Commission, but that
cannot absolve a member from the obligation of disclosing
to the Commission that her daughter was to appear in the
examination conducted by the Commission. Obviously,
the object was to ensure that she did not participate in
that particular selection process lest charges are raised
of partiality in the process of selection. Normally, in such
a situation the member or members are to be kept out
of the particular process. Since, admittedly the daughter
of the respondent had applied for appearing in the 2002
Examination from two places and the respondent had failed
to inform the Commission about the participation of her
daughter in such an examination, it has to be held that she
has misconducted herself by not making a disclosure to
the Commission in that regard. The fact that the daughter
later on did not actually appear in the examination would
make no difference.

xx xx xx xx
151. It is true that the respondent was in constant touch
with Nitin Sathe. We have already discountenanced the
story that she was contacting Nitin Sathe only in connection
with the sale of her plot in Pune. But even then, it cannot
be said that there is adequate evidence to show any
collusion with Nitin Sathe as reflected by this charge.
Therefore, though some suspicions are raised regarding
the conduct of the respondent in this Court in the light of
her own evidence, it is not possible to say that the charge,
2250 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

as such, has been made out so as to enable us to hold
that this charge is proved against the respondent.
152. Thus, based on our finding on Charge 3 and our
observations on Charge 2, we are of the view that the
respondent has not behaved in a manner befitting a
member of a constitutional body like the Public Service
Commission and under the circumstances we answer the
reference made by the Hon’ble the President of India to
us in the affirmative only as regards Charge 3.”
31. In Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India,
In re, (Reference No. 1 of 2003) reported in (2009) 1 SCC 337,
against the Chairman of the Orissa Public Service Commission with
the allegation that even though he had given an undertaking that
none of his relatives were participating in the recruitment process
for Orissa Civil Services, his married daughters had applied for the
same. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, held
that the daughters of the Chairman had withdrawn their application
prior to the examination and he had not taken any step towards
selecting them, and therefore there was no wilful abuse of the office
of Chairman. This Court while observing that ‘misbehaviour’ is not
defined per se in the Constitution, held as under: -
“28. Article 317, like Article 124(4) does not define
misbehaviour or enumerate what acts would constitute
misbehaviour except that clause (4) of Article 317 makes
an improvement in specifying misbehaviour, namely, being
interested in any government contract. Outside clause (4),
it is left to the Supreme Court to determine whether any
particular act or conduct is of such a nature as to warrant
the removal of the Chairman or member on the ground of
“misbehaviour”. Ordinarily bribery, corruption and the like
should be regarded as such “misbehaviour”. But there is
no limitation prescribed by the Constitution itself.

xx xx xx xx
30. In Article 124(4) “misbehaviour” means wrong conduct
or improper conduct. It has to be construed with reference
to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term
occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2251

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

statute under consideration. Every act or conduct or error
of judgment or negligence by a constitutional authority per
se does not amount to misbehaviour. Misconduct implies
a creation of some degree of mens rea by the doer. (1)
Wilful abuse of constitutional office, (2) wilful misconduct in
the office, (3) corruption, (4) lack of integrity or any other
offence involving moral turpitude would be misbehaviour.
(5) Judicial finding of guilt of grave crime is misconduct.
(6) Persistent failure to perform duties or wilful abuse of
the office would be misbehaviour…”
32. Reference Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India,
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, (Reference No. 1
of 2006) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 41, was made against the
Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission with the
charge inter alia of irregularity and mismanagement in the conduct
of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service Examination. This Court held that
no misbehaviour was proved on the part of the Chairman since
irregularities in the examination were due to the fault of some of the
officers of the Public Service Commission and were not attributable
to the Chairman specifically. It was also held that since there is no
definition of ‘misbehaviour’ in Article 317 of the Constitution of India,
it is only after a fact-finding inquiry that it can be decided whether
the alleged acts of the Chairman would amount to ‘misbehaviour’.
Relevant portion of the aforesaid report has been quoted herein: -
“6. Article 317 of the Constitution does not define
“misbehaviour” or enumerate what acts would constitute
“misbehaviour”. It is only after a fact-finding inquiry is held,
it could be said whether the alleged acts committed by
the Chairman amount to “misbehaviour”.
10. The main complaint regarding the Preliminary Civil
Services Examination held in 2005 was that for General
Studies paper, there was a mixing up of model answer
keys which prompted the leader of a political party to
make a complaint to the Chief Minister. RW 2 who was the
Secretary to the Governor deposed that the answer keys
and the questions got mixed up due to computer error.
The witnesses examined did not depose that there was
any negligence on the part of the Chairman of the Public
2252 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Service Commission. A series of individual complaints have
been referred to but, in these matters, the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission was not found responsible.
12. All these facts would only indicate that the Chairman
of the Public Service Commission was unnecessarily
dragged on to this controversy and in view of the evidence
adduced, it is clear that if any irregularities had taken place
in the conduct of the examination, it was due to the fault
of some of the officers of the Public Service Commission
and not by Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman of the Public
Service Commission.”
33. In Mehar Singh Saini, In re (Reference No. 2 of 2008) reported
in (2010) 13 SCC 586, this Court dealt with a reference in respect
of the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service
Commission with the allegation of massive irregularities and
illegalities in the process of selection made by the Commission.
It was also alleged that the Chairman and other members of the
Commission did not cooperate in the investigation being carried
out by the State Vigilance Bureau in respect of selections made by
the Commission even after specific directions were issued against
them to cooperate by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In
the said context, this Court discussed the difference between
‘misbehaviour’, ‘misconduct’ and ‘proved misbehaviour’ and held
that the word ‘misbehaviour’ must be given wide import and cannot
be restrictively interpreted.
34. The Court held that the expression ‘misbehaviour’ generally refers
to conduct which might erode the faith and confidence of the public
at large in such constitutional office. After reaching such a finding,
this Court observed that in the facts of the case, the misbehaviour of
the Chairman and members of the Commission stood proved inter-
alia that the members of the Commission had not maintained the
required standard of transparency and fairness in decision-making
by endorsing and approving the name of a person and then selecting
him, recommending his name for recruitment when he had applied
with a false certificate. Additionally, while relying on the evidence
on record, this Court finally held that the Chairman and members
of the Commission had not cooperated in furnishing records and
documents to the investigating authorities. The Court acknowledged
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2253

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

that there was no direct evidence to show that manipulations in the
recruitment process had been carried out by the Chairman and the
members of the Commission, but they were duty-bound 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. Relevant portion of the aforementioned
report is quoted herein: -
“63. The plain language of Article 317(1) indicates that
the expression “on the ground of misbehaviour” is an
expression of wide connotation and cannot be given
a restricted meaning. Normally, such term should be
understood keeping in view the nature of the misbehaviour
complained of, the office in question and the standards
expected to be maintained by the constitutional body in
discharge of its functions.

xx xx xx xx
74. …..Misconduct may relate to graver acts, deeds
and omissions while misbehaviour may relate to the
standards expected to be maintained by the holder of
the constitutional office. In other words, misbehaviour/
misconduct could be used interchangeably in certain
circumstances while in others they may have to be
understood as clearly distinguishable. “Misbehaviour” may
include behaviour that was not expected of the holder
of the constitutional office but would not include “grave
misconduct” or “proved misbehaviour”. This distinction has
to be kept in mind by this Court where the constitutional
mandate refers to “misbehaviour” which is an expression
of very wide magnitude. As already held by this Court in
Reference No. 1 of 2003, 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.

xx xx xx xx
2254 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

110. The application of Pradeep Sangwan was liable to
be rejected at the very threshold in terms of Condition 2
of the general clarifications but the same was accepted
and he was called for interview and selected. Despite the
complaint, which subsequently was found to be correct,
his name 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.
xx xx xx xx
140. When all these facts are examined in their correct
perspective, it is obvious that withholding of record and
non-cooperative attitude adopted by the then Chairman/
members of the Commission, were not for bona fide
reasons and, much less, to protect the constitutional
stature of the Commission. On the contrary, 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 the 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 fides and was, primarily, intended to withhold
the records from the investigating agencies to cover up
the above misdeeds, irregularities and illegalities.
xx xx xx xx
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2255

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

147. 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 Commission. In our
view the maxim qui non prohibit quod prohibere potest
facere videtur would alter the equities against the private
respondents.”
35. In the context of ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 124 of the Constitution of
India, this court illuminatingly laid down the scope and meaning of the
word ‘misbehaviour’ in Article 124(4) in the case of C. Ravichandran
Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457. The relevant
paragraph has been quoted hereunder: -
“24. Article 124(4) of the Constitution sanctions action for
removal of a Judge on proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
The word ‘misbehaviour’ was not advisedly defined. It is
a vague and elastic word and embraces within its sweep
different facets of conduct as opposed to good conduct.
In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1987 Edn. at
p. 821, collected from several decisions, the meaning of
the word ‘misconduct’, is stated to be vague and relative
term. Literally, it means wrong conduct or improper conduct.
It has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter
2256 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and the context wherein the term occurs having regard to
the scope of the Act or the statute under consideration. In
the context of disciplinary proceedings against a solicitor,
the word misconduct was construed as professional
misconduct extending to conduct “which shows him to be
unworthy member of the legal profession”. In the context
of misrepresentation made by a pleader, who obtained
adjournment of a case on grounds to his knowledge to
be false a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in First
Grade Pleader, Re [AIR 1931 Mad 422] held that if a legal
practitioner deliberately made, for the purpose of impeding
the course of justice, a statement to the court which he
believed to be untrue and thereby gained an advantage
for his client, he was guilty of gross improper conduct and
as such rendered himself liable to be dealt with by the
High Court in the exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction.
Misconduct on the part of an arbitrator was construed to
mean that misconduct does not necessarily comprehend or
include misconduct of a fraudulent or improper character,
but it does comprehend and include action on the part of
the arbitrator which is, upon the face of it, opposed to all
rational and reasonable principles that should govern the
procedure of any person who is called upon to decide
upon questions in difference and dispute referred to him
by the parties. Misconduct in office was construed to mean
unlawful behaviour or include negligence by public officer,
by which the rights of the party have been affected.”
36. In Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605, this Court
considered the scope of ‘misbehaviour’ in Article 124(4) and held that: -
“71. Every act or conduct or even error of judgment or
negligent acts by higher judiciary per se does not amount
to misbehaviour. Wilful abuse of judicial office, wilful
misconduct in the office, corruption, lack of integrity, or
any other offence involving moral turpitude would be
misbehaviour. Misconduct implies actuation of some
degree of mens rea by the doer. Judicial finding of guilt
of grave crime is misconduct. Persistent failure to perform
the judicial duties of the Judge or wilful abuse of the office
dolus malus would be misbehaviour. Misbehaviour would
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2257

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

extend to conduct of the Judge in or beyond the execution
of judicial office. Even administrative actions or omissions
too need accompaniment of mens rea.”
37. From the opinions of this Court in different reference cases as well
as other judgements enumerated hereinabove, it is luculent that
this Court has on numerous occasions been called upon to interpret
the meaning of the word ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317 of the
Constitution of India. Article 317 of the Constitution of India does not
define the term ‘misbehaviour’. Thus, it must be given a wider import;
it cannot be narrowly construed and is required to be understood in
the context of the alleged misbehaviour complained of, the office in
question and the standards required to be maintained by a person
as a necessary corollary of holding such office. It is different from the
term ‘proved misbehaviour’ under Article 124(4) of the Constitution
of India. The scheme of Article 317 of the Constitution of India is
such that misbehaviour by a member of Public Service Commission
has to be established in an inquiry conducted by the Supreme Court
upon reference by the Hon’ble President of India, and only then the
Chairman or Members may be removed from the office, whereas
under clause 4 of Article 124 of the Constitution of India, ‘proved
misbehaviour’ is a condition precedent for the Parliament to move
an address before the Hon’ble President of India for removal of a
Judge of the Supreme Court from the office, which has to be proved
before a separate Committee constituted under the appropriate
legislation. The framers of the Constitution have mindfully used
distinct expressions in different articles, the use of the term ‘proved’
in Article 124 of the Constitution of India indicates their intention to
link respective constitutional offices and misbehaviour in terms of the
standards to be upheld by the holder of such constitutional office.

Misbehaviour & Misconduct through the lens of Legal Dictionaries
38. Misbehaviour is also different from misconduct. As per Advanced
Law Lexicon, 7th Edn., 2024 by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, misbehaviour
is defined as “Ill conduct; improper or unlawful behaviour.” Whereas
misconduct is defined as, “wrongful intention, and not a mere error
of judgment.” Misconduct has an element of mens rea, whereas
misbehaviour may include any conduct on part of the member which
does not align with standards of the office. As held in Mehar Singh
Saini (Supra), misconduct may include graver acts or omissions
2258 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

whereas misbehaviour refers to a conduct which has the potential
to destroy the faith in a public office.
39. Black’s Law Dictionary, in its 6th Edn. at Pg. 998, defines ‘Misbehaviour’
as “ill conduct, improper or unlawful behaviour”, and it defines
‘Misconduct’ at Pg. 999 as “A transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful
behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour; its
synonyms are misdemeanour, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency,
impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or
carelessness”. ‘Misconduct in office’ was defined as “Any unlawful
behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office,
wilful in character. Term embraces acts which the office holder had
no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in
the face of an affirmative duty to act”.
40. The Encyclopedic Law Dictionary, in its 3rd Edn., at Pg. 720 defines
‘Misbehaviour’ as “improper or unlawful conduct, generally applied
to a breach of duty or propriety by an officer, witness, etc. not
amounting to a crime”.
41. The Supreme Court, when called upon to decide a reference
under Article 317 of the Constitution of India, must embark on
a fact-finding inquiry to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in
the facts and circumstances of that case, the allegations against
the Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission would
amount to misbehaviour. Misbehaviour has been interpreted to
have a larger ambit than misconduct at a somewhat normative
level – every misconduct might be considered a misbehaviour but
not every misbehaviour amounts to misconduct, since even acts
which bring disrepute to the office of the Public Service Commission
have been interpreted by this Court to be misbehaviour. As we have
already discussed above, instances of physical violence between the
members, non-declaration of relatives participating in a recruitment
process conducted by the Commission and attempting to influence
the Commission to favour a particular candidate have all been
considered as instances of ‘misbehaviour’ by this Court. This Court
has therefore given an extensive, wide and liberal interpretation
to the term ‘misbehaviour’. Even though, generally, this Court has
negatived allegations of misbehaviour against members of a Public
Service Commission on account of lack of direct evidence linking
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2259

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

such member to irregularities alleged, but where for instance in Mehar
Singh Saini (Supra), on the basis of evidence the inaction and lack
of due diligence of the Commission is absolutely glaring at a prima
facie level and palpably illegal and reeks of favouritism, the Court
has taken a view that even though there might be no direct evidence
linking the members to the irregularities alleged, the responsibility of
the members of the Commission cannot be washed away.
42. The construction of the language used in Article 317 of the
Constitution of India, if given a plain reading, however, makes it
clear that removal and suspension of a member of a Public Service
Commission is in personam and not of the entire Public Service
Commission or its members as a collective entity. The inquiry and
eventual recommendation for removal, if any, must be specific to
the conduct of a particular office-bearer with respect to any act or
omission constituting ‘misbehaviour’ done in their official capacity.
For proving ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317 of the Constitution of
India, in order to remove a Chairman or Member of a Public Service
Commission upon reference being made by the Hon’ble President of
India, it is generally necessary to demonstrate with cogent material
as per the procedure laid down that the conduct complained of and
charges formulated are attributable to the individual in question.

Significance of the office of Chairman of Public Service
Commission and its Members
43. Adequate focus must be given to the importance of the public office
in question since in the context of Constituent Assembly debates and
Article 317 of the Constitution of India, the Public Service Commission
is a Constitutional body which must, on one hand, be completely
independent and without any obligation towards the Executive while
on the other hand, its Chairman and members must be beyond
reproach, with exemplary ethical and moral standards, in order to
retain the faith of the common man in the process of selection and
appointments to public offices. As apparent from the above referred
judgments, allegations of misbehaviour can’t be adjudicated in
vacuum. Such adjudication ought to be in light of the factual set-
up and the standard of behaviour expected from the Chairperson
and Members of the Commission because the fact of misbehaviour
implies a departure from accepted standards in a manner sufficiently
serious to call for removal. These expected standards of behaviour
2260 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

are natural consequences of the purpose underlying the establishment
of Public Service Commissions.
44. These Commissions were established as independent constitutional
bodies to ensure that the process of recruitment in public service
became insulated from political pressure and that recruitment
to public administrative posts is conducted with utmost fairness
and transparency. Their role is not merely administrative but also
constitutional in nature, as they serve as sentinels of public trust
in the civil service system. This purpose was also echoed by Shri
Raj Bahadur, member of the Constituent Assembly1 in the following
manner –
“....if we go down deep to probe into the very basis
and principles on which the public service commissions
are created, we would find that the necessity these
commissions was felt mainly on three grounds – firstly,
that favouritism and nepotism were rampant when there
were no such commission and individual likes or dislikes
whims and fancies came into play; secondly, merit was
not recognised and instead of merit, birth, descent or other
such things were recognised as the basis of selection for
government jobs; lastly, canvassing was free. In order to
eliminate all such defects, in order to secure very best and
most deserving men for all jobs in the state, we recognised
the necessity for creating Public Service Commissions and
thus, they came into being.”
Similar views were endorsed by this Court in Mehar Singh Saini,
In Re (supra) as reproduced hereunder –
“6. Higher the public office, greater is the responsibility. The
adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of functions of
the Commission can result in defects not only in the process
of selection but also in the appointments to the public offices
which, in turn, will affect effectiveness of administration of
the State. Most of the democratic countries in the world
have set up Public Service Commissions to make the
matter of appointments free from nepotism and political

1 Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX, Pg. 568-569 (Sixth Reprint, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2014)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2261

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

patronage. For 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.”
45. It is this pivotal purpose that presupposes impeccable conduct
on the part of Chairman and Members of the Public Service
Commissions. The integrity of the Commissions’ recommendations
and the legitimacy of the recruitment processes they conduct
depends upon the public perception that such decisions are free
from any arbitrariness, bias, or personal interest. That is to say, a
common man of this country expects honesty, integrity and complete
objectivity from the Chairpersons and Members of the Commissions.
These Commissions must function unbiased and impartially, so that
the society does not lose confidence in its functioning. This Court
in Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India,
In re, 2 has explained these expected standards of behaviour as
a minimum standard of code of conduct that is expected of the
Chairpersons and Members of the Commissions. An act which may
be excusable when carried out by a young educated person may
not be tolerable if a Chairperson or Member of a Public Service
Commission is involved. Such standard of irreproachable behaviour
was also expected by this Court in Mehar Singh Saini, In Re (Supra)
in manner as reproduced hereunder –
“8. The conduct of the Chairman and members of the
Commission, in discharge of their duties, has to be above
board and beyond censure. The credibility of the institution

2 (1990) 4 SCC 262 (Para 31)
2262 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the Public Service Commission is founded upon faith
of the common man on its proper functioning. Constant
allegations of corruption and promotion of family interests
at the cost of national interest resulting in invocation of
constitutional mechanism for the removal of Chairman/
members of the Commission erode public confidence
in the Commission. Prof. Brown and Prof. Garner’s
observation in their treatise French Administrative Law,
3rd Edn. (1983) in this regard can be usefully referred to.
They said: ‘The standard of behaviour of an administration
depends in the last resort upon the quality and traditions
of the public officials who compose it rather than upon
such sanctions as may be exercised through a system
of judicial control.’”
46. Membership in a Public Service Commission is a position of significant
constitutional trust and responsibility. The credibility of such an
institution, rests fundamentally on the faith of the common citizen
in its fair and transparent functioning. Thus, any conduct on part of
its members that appears subjective or raises suspicion, has the
potential to erode the faith and undermine public confidence. Thus,
it is imperative for a Public Service Commission to discharge its
duties with utmost impartiality, free from any extraneous and suspect
influences that could compromise its integrity. Articles 315 to 320 of
the Constitution of India act like a complete code on Public Service
Commissions, providing them independence for fair discharge of
their functions, as well as ensuring their security and protection from
any external interference. It is indisputable that the Chairperson
and Members of a Public Service Commission must conform to a
standard of conduct that is unimpeachable in the eyes of law. Their
actions, decisions, and even omissions must reflect the fairness, and
highest degree of integrity inherent in these constitutional offices.
The standard of behaviour expected of them is thus neither ordinary
nor comparable to that of other public servants; it is elevated by the
very nature of the institution they represent. The removal of any
such officeholder on the ground of misbehaviour, therefore, must be
assessed on these anvils. In a democratic polity that is constantly
being shaped by ethos of transformative constitutionalism, the moral
compass of those entrusted with such public responsibilities must
remain unblemished.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2263

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

ANALYSIS AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
47. As discussed above, in terms of the scheme of Article 317 of the
Constitution of India, in the case at hand, a reference has been
made by the Hon’ble President of India relying upon Chapter 7 of
the report of the Inquiry Committee. Thus, a fact-finding inquiry has
to be conducted in respect of the allegation of misbehaviour of Ms.
Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, APPSC.
48. In the said context, the reference to this Court was made on
the basis of the report of the Inquiry Committee constituted on
21.09.2022. The terms of reference to the Inquiry Committee have
already been referred to in para 8 of this report which relate to the
incident of leakage of question paper in the Mains Examination for
the recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) held on 26th
and 27th August, 2022 conducted by the APPSC; that whether SOP
regarding setting of question papers and its design were followed;
to determine the lapses on the part of officers/officials involved in
process of recruitment; recommendations for changes to the SOP
by the Commission; recommendations regarding selection process
of officials deputed in APPSC or to make any modifications and on
any other related issues.
49. In respect of the said terms of reference, Chapter 7 of the Inquiry
Committee report refers to observations and recommendations.
The said Chapter 7 is divided into several clauses, but it does not
indicate any personal indictment, or any act or omission relating
to misbehaviour on the part of the Chairman or Members of the
Commission. Further, Chapter 8 concludes by answering the said
terms of reference. We have perused the report of the Inquiry
Committee in its entirety; however, we do not find any specific act or
omission of any Member of APPSC which has been pointed out in
the report. Therefore, it can be safely observed that either in terms
of the reference, or in reply to those terms of reference, the Inquiry
Committee has not made any allegations indicating illegality or any
act or omission on the part of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, Member,
APPSC in her individual official capacity purportedly constituting her
misbehaviour.
50. The said report was placed before the Cabinet of the State of
Arunachal Pradesh. After taking the advice of the Advocate General of
the State, the Chief Minister of the State wrote a letter on 27.10.2022
2264 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to the Hon’ble Governor of the State, after which the Hon’ble Governor
wrote a letter on 02.12.2022 to the Hon’ble President of India seeking
to make a reference under Article 317 of the Constitution of India
to the Supreme Court of India on the pretext that the removal of
members of the incumbent APPSC and fresh reconstitution of the
Commission can be a starting point to restore the credibility and trust.
51. In this conspectus, we shall now deal with the six charges levelled
against Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage in seriatim.

As regards Charge No. I
52. This charge relates to leakage of question papers for the Assistant
Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination, 2022 allegedly with the
connivance of the functionaries of the Commission. It is alleged that
the Respondent along with the Chairman and other members failed
to prevent the leakage of question paper and to ensure confidentiality
in the functioning of the Commission. In reply to the said charge,
the Respondent has stated that she was not allocated the work of
paper setting, moderating, evaluation and printing with respect to
Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination 2022.
53. In support of the said charge, nothing has been brought on record
to substantiate the Respondent’s alleged connivance in leakage of
the question papers and how far she may be held responsible for
not preventing it and ensuring confidentiality in the working of the
APPSC. As per Chapter 7 of the report of the Inquiry Committee, it is
clear that the allocation of work relating to question paper setting and
moderating was done following the SOP of the APPSC. The Inquiry
Committee while making observations compared the functioning
of the APPSC with the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board
(APSSB), and recommended that to enhance security, the work
in the APPSC could be handled at the level of Secretary, APPSC,
who is the senior-most serving officer in the Commission. It further
made observations and recommendations for improvement in the
process of conducting examinations. Hence, the entire report does
not impute any allegation or personal indictment in the form of any
act or omission by the Respondent, which would indicate even her
negligence in fulfilling her duties as a member of the APPSC.
54. In order to support Charge No. I, the statement of P.W. – 1, Suraj
Gurung was recorded, who at the relevant point of time was serving
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2265

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

as Joint Secretary – cum – Controller of Examination. He was
suspended after the question papers for the Mains Examination were
leaked and disciplinary proceedings against him were pending. In
his statement recorded by the Registrar of this Court, no specific
assertion has been made that the Respondent was assigned the
task of paper-setting or printing of the questions papers for the
Mains Examination. It is also not specified how and in what manner
the Respondent failed to prevent the leakage of the said question
paper. It is merely said by P.W. – 1 that the overall supervision
and monitoring of the affairs of the APPSC is the responsibility of
the Chairman and Members of the Commission, which however
later has been admitted as personal opinion of this witness in the
cross-examination.
55. Another witness is P.W. – 2, Mr. Tanyang Rissang, who was working
as Section Officer, Recruitment Section – A, has also not said
anything with respect to the allegations under Charge No. I against
the Respondent.
56. In defence, the statement of D.W. – 1, Mr. Tsering Naksang has
been recorded, who at the relevant point of time was a Member of
the APPSC, but resigned on 31.10.2022. As per the SOP, being a
member of the APPSC, he conducted the draw of lots for selecting
the final question paper set to be used in the Mains Examination.
While deposing, he specifically stated that the Chairman and Members
of the APPSC are not involved in the confidential aspect of the
examination process, which is based on the rules and regulations
of the Commission, i.e., 2017 Guidelines, as they are involved at
the interview stage of the examination.
57. The Respondent has also testified as D.W. – 2. She stated that she
started her tenure in office as indicated above on 13.08.2021, which
is after the issuance of the advertisement for recruitment to the post
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 04.05.2021. Further, as per the 2017
Guidelines, members of the APPSC are not involved in the affairs
of the Commission concerning the setting of question papers; they
are involved only at the stage of draw of lots for selection of one
set of paper for the examination and at the interview stage, which
is conducted much later.
58. Pertinently, in the Inquiry Committee’s report, nothing is said with
respect to Charge No. I against the Respondent. It is acknowledged
2266 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in the report that the Controller of Examination, Deputy Controller of
Examination or Assistant Controller of Examination were involved
in setting, moderating and distribution of the papers. The report
further notes that the investigation in the criminal case has revealed
connivance between the officials of the APPSC and agent of the
printer as found by the Inquiry Committee. In the criminal proceedings
also, neither she has been made accused, nor anything has been
indicated regarding her involvement in paper setting, moderating or
leakage of any question paper. As such, in our view, Charge No. I
in the reference has not been proved constituting any misbehaviour
on the part of the Respondent.

As regards Charge No. II
59. This charge relates to previous examinations conducted by the
APPSC since 2017 and their possible leakage on the basis of
complaints raised in that regard, and not bringing changes in the
relevant guidelines to address such issues. In the present case,
the Respondent was appointed as a member of the APPSC on
12.08.2021 and she joined on 13.08.2021. There is no specific
allegation against the Respondent that after her joining, she was
given a particular duty which required her to carry out such changes
in the guidelines, which she has failed to carry out. Further, a prima-
facie reading of the charge indicates that the Respondent is sought
to be made wholly responsible for not considering the possibility
of leakages happening since 2017 and to bring about change in
the guidelines. It is clear that the Respondent was appointed on
12.08.2021, which was after the alleged leakages since 2017, so also
after the advertisement for the recruitment on the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) was issued. It is also clear from the Inquiry Report
that the Respondent was not involved in the paper setting procedure
for the Mains Examination. There is no evidence to prove that the
Respondent had the sole responsibility to consider all these issues
and consider bringing changes in the guidelines. In our view, this
charge is completely vague and the material brought before us does
not evince any misbehaviour on the part of the Respondent since it
is unclear how any irregularity in previously conducted recruitment
processes can be attributed to the Respondent, who joined in the
year 2021, which would prove that her conduct would fall within the
contours of ‘misbehaviour’.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2267

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

As regards Charge No. III and V
60. Charge No. III relates to the responsibility of the APPSC to take
remedial action by bringing relevant changes in the examination
guidelines to avoid the leakage of the Mains Examination and Charge
No. V relates to the allegation of not finalizing the draft ‘Arunachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination
Guidelines - 2022’ (hereinafter referred to as “2022 Guidelines”). It
is implied in the Charge No. V as framed that it was the duty of the
Chairman and the Members of the APPSC to bring about change
in the guidelines, and that such change if carried out timely, could
have prevented the leakage of the question paper for the Mains
Examination. In this regard, the Respondent has submitted that the
draft of the 2022 Guidelines was ready but it could not be brought
into effect, as one ‘All Arunachal Nyishi Students’ Union submitted
a 7-point Memorandum to the State Government for resolution of
certain issues regarding conduct of examinations by the APPSC
and demanded reforms. To address this, the State Government
constituted a High-Level Committee headed by Shri Taba Tedir, the
then Hon’ble Minister for Education of Arunachal Pradesh. While the
Committee was seized of the matter and final report was awaited,
in the interregnum, the 2022 Guidelines were kept in abeyance by
common consensus of the Chairman and Members of the APPSC
on 22.07.2022. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, the new
guidelines were pending because of a collective decision of the
Commission. In this regard, nothing has been substantiated by the
departmental witnesses in their testimony before this Court to prove
that there was any deliberate act on the part of the Respondent in
preventing the initiation of new guidelines or bringing changes in
the policy. It would be a stretch to claim that bringing about new
guidelines for the conduct of examinations in the state would be
the sole responsibility of the Respondent and that she has failed
in her individual official capacity to bring about such guidelines. It
would be even more conjectural to claim that the Respondent by
her actions actively prevented the Commission from bringing about
fresh guidelines and change in the recruitment process. In absence
of any evidence in that respect, in our view both the charges are
vague in nature, more so, no specific allegation or indictment of any
action to be done by the Respondent has been alleged or proved
bringing cogent material before us. Consequently, such allegations
2268 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

without having any cogent material placed on record, the allegations
do not come within the contours of misbehaviour of the Respondent.
As such, in our view, both the charges are not proved.

As regards Charge No. IV
61. Now coming to Charge No. IV, which relates to the collective
responsibility of the Respondent along with the Chairman and the
Members of the APPSC to ensure confidentiality in functioning of
the Commission. It is said that Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage being the
member allocated the law and judicial work along with all legal
matters, it was her exclusive responsibility which she had failed
to discharge. In response, the said allegation has been denied by
the Respondent, inter-alia stating that she was not involved in any
legal matter concerning the conduct of the Mains Examination.
During the hearing, we sought clarification from the learned counsel
representing APPSC regarding the duty allocated to each member
of the commission. He has produced the work assignment order
dated 18.08.2021. The said order is relevant, therefore, reproduced
as under:-
“Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
ITANAGAR
-R(A)/23/2017
Dated Itanagar, the 18th August 2021
ORDER
Consequent upon appointment and joining of Ms. Mepung
Tadar Bage as Hon’ble Member, APPSC on 13thAugust,
2021, the earlier order even no. and dated 9th June, 2021
stands modified.
Hence, for better supervision and timely monitoring of
recruitment related activities of the Commission, the
following distribution of works is ordered with immediate
effect:
1. Shri Tsering Naksang, Hon’ble Member–I
(i) A.P. Secretariat service matters thereof
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2269

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

(ii) Deptt. of Higher & Technical Education
(iii) Deptt. of Secondary Education
(iv) Deptt. of Elementary Education
(v) Environment & Forests
(vi) Deptt. of Disaster Management
(vii) Rectt. of JE(Civil)/AUPO
(viii) Finance, Planning & Disinvestment
(ix) Power (Electrical/Civil)
(x) Hydropower
(xi) Library
(xii) IPR

2. Major General Ganesh Singh Bisht, VSM (Retd),
Hon’ble Member–II
(i) Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined
Competitive Examination (APPSCCE)
(ii) Tourism
(iii) Tax & Excise
(iv) Department of Home
(v) Information Technology (IT)
(vi) Annual Reports of APPSC
(vii) Audit & Pension
(viii) Textile & Handicraft
(ix) Youth Affairs & Sports
(x) Agriculture
(xi) Horticulture
(xii) AH & Veterinary
2270 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3. Major General Jarken Gamlin, AVSM, SM, VSM
(Retd.), Hon’ble Member–III
(i) RD & Panchayati Raj
(ii) Accounts & Treasuries
(iii) RWD
(iv) Asstt. Engineer (Civil)
(v) Political Department
(vi) Tomo Riba Institute of Health & Medical Science
(TRIHMS)
(vii) Administrative Training Institute (ATI)
(viii) DPC
(ix) Periodic weeding of records & management.
(x) Fishery
(xi) Transport & Civil Aviation
4. Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, Hon’ble Member–IV
(i) Law & Judicial
(ii) Social Welfare, Women & Child Development
(iii) Health & Family Welfare
(iv) State Election Commission
(v) Right to information Act, 2005
(vi) State Chief Election Office
(vii) State Election Commission
(viii) State Legislative Assembly
(ix) All legal matters including (PILs).
(x) Art & Cultural Affairs
(xi) Food & Civil Supply
(xii) Social Justice, Empowerment & Tribal Affairs
Any matter/subject/Department not specifically allotted to
any members shall be submitted to the Chairman. All files
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2271

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

shall be routed through the concerned Hon’ble Members
before submission to the Chairman.
Sd/- Nipo Nabam
Chairman
APPSC
Memo No. PSC-R(A)/23/2017
Dated Itanagar, the 18th August, 2021.”

62. Upon reading the work allotment order reproduced above, it is
clear that it was issued by the Chairman after appointment of the
Respondent for better supervision and timely monitoring of recruitment
activities of the Commission. The matter relating to the recruitment
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was assigned to Major General Jarken
Gamlin, AVSM, SM, VSM (Retd.), Hon’ble Member–III of the APPSC
and Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage was assigned the work relating to
‘Law & Judicial’ and ‘All legal matters including (PIL)’, among other
responsibilities. When learned counsel for the APPSC was further
asked to show how the Respondent being in charge of legal matters
was exclusively responsible for revising 2017 Guidelines, in reply,
nothing was placed on record to prove the said allegation. In fact,
by an additional affidavit dated 17.03.2025, it has been admitted by
the APPSC that firstly, there is no document or order which clarifies
the specific nature of duties to be discharged by a member of the
Commission; secondly, no member of the Commission was solely or
exclusively assigned the task of revising the 2017 Guidelines. Hence,
it cannot be said that the Respondent was assigned any work of the
Commission to be performed by her and because of not discharging
the work to bring the new guidelines, she failed to perform her duty,
for which she may be held liable for an act of misbehaviour. It was
also stated by the APPSC that the Respondent’s individual failure
has resulted in an institutional failure as there was a collective
duty of the APPSC to ensure security and confidentiality. Nothing
has been brought on record to support this argument even during
hearing. Simultaneously, failure in discharge of individual duties
by the Respondent has also not been proved and such being the
case, attributing the institutional failure in bringing about reforms in
examination process and to initiate the new guidelines to her solely
appears to be speculative and untenable.
2272 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

63. Learned Attorney General of India has made a valiant attempt to
persuade us that there are certain common functions of a Public
Service Commission which have to be performed by every member
of that Commission to ensure a fair, transparent and smooth
functioning and the Court must look at the charges framed in the
Presidential Reference and assess whether the intention was to
address the individual dereliction of duty or collective dereliction by
the Commission. He argues that Article 317(1) of the Constitution
of India encompasses misbehaviour on an institutional level as well,
where a Public Service Commission may be responsible collectively
in failing to discharge its duties and thereby guilty of misbehaviour.
It was also submitted by the learned Attorney General of India that
the report of the Inquiry Committee looked at the incident as another
episode of leakage in terms of collective duties of APPSC. We have
given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned
Attorney General of India, and we find it difficult to agree with him. As
discussed above, a bare reading of Article 317(1) of the Constitution
would indicate that removal on the ground of misbehaviour is individual
and not collective in nature.

Collective Responsibility
64. Article 317 of the Constitution of India does not envisage the
principle of Collective Responsibility, unlike some other provisions
of the Constitution of India. Yet, we find it imperative to reproduce
excerpts from judicial precedents on Collective Responsibility at this
juncture in order to describe their inapplicability to the instant matter.
The jurisprudence is expounded by this Court is discussed in the
following paragraphs.
65. In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC
667, the concept of collective responsibility was elaborately discussed
in the following words: -
“31. The concept of “collective responsibility” is essentially
a political concept. The country is governed by the party in
power on the basis of the policies adopted and laid down
by it in the Cabinet meeting. “Collective responsibility” has
two meanings: the first meaning which can legitimately be
ascribed to it is that all members of a Government are
unanimous in support of its policies and would exhibit that
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2273

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

unanimity on public occasions although while formulating
the policies, they might have expressed a different view
in the meeting of the Cabinet. The other meaning is that
Ministers, who had an opportunity to speak for or against
the policies in the Cabinet are thereby personally and
morally responsible for its success and failure.
32. In the British Constitution & Politics, 5th Edn. by J.
Harvey and L. Bather, it is said as under:
“Except when a Minister explains the reasons
for his resignation, Parliament hears nothing
of the Cabinet’s current deliberations. These
remain secret, and only decisions as a whole
are reported to the House when policy is
announced. Any leakage of divergent views held
by Ministers would, as during Queen Victoria’s
reign, seriously weaken the Government. In
its decisions, ‘the Cabinet is a unity to the
House’. While a Minister can speak against
any proposal in a Cabinet meeting, he must
either support the policy decided upon or resign.
Recent resignations of this nature are Frank
Cousins (Prices and Incomes Bill, 1966) and
Lord Longford (Education Cuts, 1968). But such
resignations are infrequent. Ministers come from
the same party and, at least initially, are fairly
homogeneous in their political views. In any
case, a former Minister is unlikely to cross the
floor of the House and join the opposition. His
disagreement with the Government is usually
over only one issue, and his basic political
outlook remains unchanged.
Thus, the Cabinet stands or falls together.
Where the policy of a particular Minister is
under attack, it is the Government as a whole
which is being attacked. Thus, the defeat of a
Minister on any major issue represents a defeat
for the Government. However, today, unlike the
nineteenth century, such defeats do not occur.
2274 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The use of rigid party discipline ensures that the
Government can always obtain a majority vote.
Nevertheless, criticism may be so severe and
widespread that the Government may modify
its policy. If the Minister identified with it feels
that his prestige with the party has been badly
damaged, he may resign, e.g. Sir Samuel Hoare
(1935) over the proposals to partition Abyssinia.
In practice, therefore, all that collective
responsibility means today is that every member
of the Government must be prepared to support
all Cabinet decisions both inside and outside
the House.”
It is further provided as under:
“The doctrine of collective responsibility has
practical advantages. First, it counteracts
departmental separation for each Minister has to
be concerned with policies of other departments.
Second, it prevents the policy of one department
being determined unilaterally. Since it is the
Cabinet as a whole which decides, Ministers
are less likely to be overinfluenced by their civil
servants. Third, it ensures that Cabinet decisions
are based on principles and not on personalities.
Collective responsibility does not apply to a
Minister’s responsibility for his permanent
officials or for his personal mistakes.”
33. In this connection, an extract from The British Cabinet
by John P. Mackintosh, 1962 Edn., is set out below as it
is also extremely relevant for this case:
“Much has been said and written about the
responsibility of Ministers. The discussion
can easily become confused because of the
different meanings that are attached to the
word ‘responsible’. Collective responsibility
will be discussed below, and the first task is to
consider whether there is any separate element
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2275

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

of individual responsibility. The most common
political meaning is that a certain Minister will
answer parliamentary questions on a given
subject. A second sense arises when those in
political circles appreciate that a particular policy
is largely the idea of the Minister, rather than
the traditional policy of the party in power, and
they may single out the Minister for attack. For
instance, in 1903-05 Wyndham was pursuing
his land purchase schemes for Ireland in a
manner which alarmed many conservatives and
would certainly have been unlikely under any
other Chief Secretary. A third sense is simply
that a Minister is responsible even if a policy
is the work of the Cabinet as a whole but his
colleagues choose to place the burden upon him.
Thus, Sir Samuel Hoare thought he was acting
in accordance with the views of the Ministry
in concluding the Hoare-Lavel Pact and his
decisions were subsequently endorsed by the
Cabinet till opposition became acute. He was
then asked to disavow and denounce his actions
but preferred ‘accepting his responsibility’, to
resign. There is, in addition, the normal moral
sense of the word meaning ‘culpable’ and a
Minister may, like a private individual, feel
responsible if he could by greater wisdom or
exertion have prevented some unfortunate
occurrence.
The one aspect that remains is the alleged
obligation on a Minister to resign when he or
one of his subordinates has blundered. The
origin of this notion is fairly clear. It dates from
the 1850s and 1860s when it was reasonable
to assume that a Minister could watch over
every significant action of his department.
Even then, there would have been no need
to acknowledge errors in this way but for the
power of the House of Commons to move
2276 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and carry a motion censuring the individual
in question without necessarily dislodging the
Government.”
66. Thereafter, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India,
(2018) 8 SCC 501, this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation
of the term Collective Responsibility, which is as follows: -
“318. Collective responsibility is a cornerstone of the
Westminster model. Initially developed as a constitutional
convention in Britain between 1780 and 1832, it began
to appear in textbooks in the 1860s and 1870s. In 1867,
Walter Bagehot, in his classic work titled The English
Constitution, called the “House of Commons” as “a real
choosing body”, which decides the path that the nation
would follow. The consequence of such a systemic
expectation in the British Parliamentary system, Bagehot
declared, was that the public can, “through Parliament, turn
out an administration which is not doing as it likes, and
can put in an administration which will do as it likes”. The
responsibility of Ministers was set as their liability “to have
all their public acts discussed in Parliament”. The Cabinet
was defined as “a collective body bound together by a
common responsibility”. Later, Lord Salisbury formulated
this common responsibility thus:
“[F]or all that passes in a Cabinet, each Member
of it who does not resign is absolutely and
irretrievably responsible, and that he has no
right afterwards to say that he agreed in one
case to a compromise, while in another he was
persuaded by one of his colleagues.… It is only
on the principle that absolute responsibility is
undertaken by every Member of a Cabinet
who, after a decision is arrived at, remains
a Member of it, that the joint responsibility of
Ministers to Parliament can be upheld, and one
of the most essential conditions of parliamentary
responsibility established.”
(emphasis supplied)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2277

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

Ministers were liable to lose their offices, if they failed
to retain the confidence of the House of Commons or
Parliament.
319. In the 1880s, Dicey in Law of the Constitution,
propounded that:
“[It] is now well-established law that the Crown
can act only through Ministers and according
to certain prescribed forms which absolutely
require the cooperation of some Minister, such
as a Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor,
who thereby becomes not only morally but
legally responsible for the legality of the act
in which he takes part. Hence, indirectly but
surely, the action of every servant of the Crown,
and therefore, in effect of the Crown itself, is
brought under the supremacy of the land. Behind
parliamentary responsibility lies legal liability,
and the acts of Ministers no less than the acts
of subordinate officials are made subject to the
rule of law.”
This fixed the responsibility of the Cabinet for the “general
conduct of affairs” of the Government.
320. In the twentieth century, Sir Ivor Jennings conceptualised
collective responsibility of a Cabinet Government, thus:
“A Government that cannot make up its mind
on a fundamental issue ought not to be the
Government and will be so regarded in the
constituencies. Its fall may be regarded as
imminent.”
The conduct of the Cabinet determines the fate of the
Government.
321. Collective responsibility of Ministers to Parliament is
comprehended in two aspects: (i) collective responsibility
of Ministers for the policies of the Government; and
(ii) individual responsibility of Ministers for the work of
their governments. The idea behind this bifurcation, as
2278 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

explained by Birch, is to hold a Government “continuously
accountable for its actions, so that it always faces the
possibility that a major mistake may result in a withdrawal
of parliamentary support.” In the British system, collective
responsibility works on basis of certain precepts which
define and regulate the existence of Government. Geoffrey
Marshall (1989) identifies three strands within the principle:
(i) The confidence principle: A Government can
only remain in office for so long as it retains
the confidence of the House of Commons, a
confidence which can be assumed unless and
until proven otherwise by a confidence vote;
(ii) The unanimity principle: All Members of
the Government speak and vote together in
Parliament, save in situations where the Prime
Minister and the Cabinet themselves make an
exception such as a free vote or an “agreement
to differ”; and
(iii) The confidentiality principle: Unanimity, as a
universally applicable situation, is a constitutional
fiction, but one which must be maintained, and is
said to allow frank ministerial discussion within
the Cabinet and the Government.
323. The doctrine of collective responsibility has evolved
as one of the indispensable features of the parliamentary
system of Government and reflects the political engagement
between Government and Parliament. In a parliamentary
democracy, the nuances of the doctrine are political. To
maintain the notion of “collegiality and coherence”, the
Ministers work as a team. In the Australian context, Wanna
(2012) postulates that collective responsibility thereby acts
as an underflowing current necessary for the survival of
a Government:
“… To survive as a Government, Ministries must
show they can maintain the confidence of the
House, put up a credible front to their political
opponents and the media, and as a working
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2279

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

Ministry find ways to deal with the business
of State, much of which will involve making
collective decisions and imposing collegial
executive authority.”
324. Granville Austin observes that the Framers of India’s
Constitution conceived that the democratic values of the
Constitution would be achieved in “the institutions of
direct, responsible Government”. The Members of the
Constituent Assembly borrowed the Parliamentary-Cabinet
form of Government from British constitutional theory and
adopted it into our Constitution. Though the Constituent
Assembly did not adopt British constitutional conventions
in the written form, collective responsibility of the Cabinet
was specifically incorporated into India’s constitutional
framework.
325. There is a direct relationship between the principle
of collective responsibility and Government accountability.
This relationship is conceptualised in The Oxford
Companion to Politics in India:
“[A]ccountability can be defined in terms
of outcomes rather than processes of
Government.… It also includes the criterion of
responsiveness to changes in circumstances
that alter citizen needs and abilities.… In other
words, accountability refers to the extent to
which actual policies and their implementation
coincide with a normative ideal in terms of
what they ought to be.… In this broad sense,
accountability amounts to evaluating the nature
of governance itself, in outcome-oriented terms.”
326. The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution
(2016) adverts to several facets of collective responsibility:
“Collective responsibility has several facets. First,
Ministers act as a common unit; Cabinet decisions
are binding on all Ministers. Disagreements, if
any, may be aired in private. Ministers, however,
speak in one voice and stand by one another
2280 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in Parliament and in public. Those that cannot
reconcile themselves with particular Government
policies, or are unwilling to defend them in public,
must resign. Conversely, decisions of particular
Ministers, unless overruled, are decisions of the
Government.”
The principle has also been considered as a political
component which political parties in power invoke to
maintain party discipline.
327. Collective responsibility also exists in practice in
situations where Ministers have no knowledge of the
actions taken by the subordinate officers of their respective
departments:
“Governing is a complex affair; hundreds of
officials in dozens of departments make many
decisions on a daily basis. … These officials
are also part of the executive, and Ministers
are responsible for those that serve in their
departments. … Ordinarily, Ministers busy
themselves with policy issues; matters of
implementation are usually left to officials over
whom Ministers command little or no oversight.
Yet, when they act, subordinates notionally do
so on behalf of Ministers. Ministers, therefore,
cannot seek refuge in ignorance. Nor can
they absolve themselves by pointing to their
officers. Both inside and outside Parliament,
they are accountable for their departmental
shortcomings.”
(emphasis in original)

328. Collective responsibility, as a principle and practice,
has been given effect authoritatively in several judgments
of this Court. The Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ram
Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab [Ram Jawaya Kapur v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549] , examined the functions
of the executive. The Court held that the President is “a
formal or constitutional head of the executive” and that
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2281

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

the “real executive powers” are vested in the Ministers or
the Cabinet : (AIR p. 556, paras 13 & 14)
“13. … Our Constitution, though federal in its
structure, is modelled on the British parliamentary
system where the executive is deemed to have
the primary responsibility for the formulation of
governmental policy and its transmission into law
though the condition precedent to the exercise of
this responsibility is its retaining the confidence
of the legislative branch of the State. …
14. … In the Indian Constitution, therefore,
we have the same system of parliamentary
executive as in England and the Council of
Ministers consisting, as it does, of the Members
of the legislature is, like the British Cabinet, “a
hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens the
legislative part of the State to the executive part”.
The Cabinet enjoying, as it does, a majority in
the legislature concentrates in itself the virtual
control of both legislative and executive functions;
and as the Ministers constituting the Cabinet
are presumably agreed on fundamentals and
act on the principle of collective responsibility,
the most important questions of policy are all
formulated by them.”
(emphasis supplied)

67. The views of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution are equally
pertinent. In the Constituent Assembly Debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
spoke thus on collective responsibility: (CAD Vol. 7, pp. 1159-60)
“I want to tell my friend Prof K.T. Shah that his amendment
would be absolutely fatal to the other principle which we
want to enact, namely, collective responsibility. All Members
of the House are very keen that the Cabinet should work
on the basis of collective responsibility and all agree
that it is a very sound principle. But I do not know how
many Members of the House realise what exactly is the
machinery by which collective responsibility is enforced.
2282 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Obviously, there cannot be a statutory remedy. Supposing
a Minister differed from other Members of the Cabinet and
gave expression to his views which were opposed to the
views of the Cabinet, it would be hardly possible for the
law to come in and to prosecute him for having committed
a breach of what might be called collective responsibility.
Obviously, there cannot be a legal sanction for collective
responsibility. The only sanction through which collective
responsibility can be enforced is through the Prime Minister.
In my judgment collective responsibility is enforced by the
enforcement of two principles. One principle is that no
person shall be nominated to the Cabinet except on the
advice of the Prime Minister. Secondly, no person shall be
retained as a Member of the Cabinet if the Prime Minister
says that he shall be dismissed. It is only when Members
of the Cabinet both in the matter of their appointment as
well as in the matter of their dismissal are placed under
the Prime Minister, that it would be possible to realise our
ideal of collective responsibility. I do not see any other
means or any other way of giving effect to that principle.
Supposing you have no Prime Minister; what would really
happen? What would happen is this, that every Minister
will be subject to the control or influence of the President.
It would be perfectly possible for the President who is not
ad idem with a particular Cabinet, to deal with each Minister
separately, singly, influence them and thereby cause
disruption in the Cabinet. Such a thing is not impossible
to imagine. Before collective responsibility was introduced
in the British Parliament you remember how the English
King used to disrupt the British Cabinet. He had what was
called a Party of King’s Friends both in the Cabinet as well
as in Parliament. That sort of thing was put a stop to by
collective responsibility. As I said, collective responsibility
can be achieved only through the instrumentality of the
Prime Minister. Therefore, the Prime Minister is really the
keystone of the arch of the Cabinet and unless and until
we create that office and endow that office with statutory
authority to nominate and dismiss Ministers there can be
no collective responsibility.”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2283

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

68. In the present case, the Inquiry Committee’s report and the evidence
brought before us does not indicate any individual responsibility or
fault on the part of the Respondent, the Chairman, or any other
APPSC member, much less any collective responsibility. If, on the
basis of the material brought, the collective fault of the Commission
is prima facie clear, then whether collective responsibility may be
invoked can be decided in an appropriate case. However, in the
present case, we are not impressed by the argument, as such, it
is repelled.
69. In Ram Ashray Yadav (Dr.), Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, In R/o (Special Reference No. 1 of 1997) (Supra)
and Reference Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India,
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, (Reference No. 1 of
2006) (Supra) where the facts are somewhat similar, the Court has
clearly held that if the facts and evidence on record do not show
that the Chairman or Member of the Public Service Commission was
directly responsible for the irregularities alleged in the charges, then
the question of them being guilty of misbehaviour under Article 317(1)
of the Constitution of India would not arise. The report in Mehar
Singh Saini (Supra) was in a fact-situation where the members of
the Commission as well as the Chairman were under reference and
there were various allegations of irregularities, such as favouritism
in the selection process, not considering the representations made
in this regard to the Commission, and of non-cooperation by the
member of the Commission in the investigation. In that context, the
Court held that the members of the Commission had a responsibility
to prevent the loss of faith of the public in the working of the
Commission. In the present case, the facts neither show that the
Respondent was solely responsible for revision in 2017 Guidelines
or to prevent leakage, nor they show any clear act or omission by
the Commission which may suffice to impute responsibility on any
of the members or the Chairman for such alleged lapse. As such,
it cannot be stated that the APPSC is at fault for the same without
having proper evidence on record. Further, the admission made by
the APPSC in the additional affidavit shows that no single member
was responsible for the revision of 2017 Guidelines. Hence, no case
of collective responsibility is made out in the present case.
70. Merely because responsibility was given to the Respondent to look
into legal matters, would not make her responsible for every act
2284 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

conducted by the APPSC. While it could be said that it is the bounden
duty of each member of a Public Service Commission to maintain
utmost sincerity and ethics and to ensure absolute confidentiality
in the work of the Commission, in this regard, nothing is on record
to show that specifically it is the Respondent who has failed in the
discharge of her duty by not ensuring the confidentiality. As a member
of the APPSC, the Respondent was responsible for the work of the
Commission and its duties coextensive with the Chairman and other
Members, but she cannot be held liable in her individual capacity
by carrying the weight of the entire Commission’s responsibilities
exclusively.
71. In the statement of the departmental witnesses also, nothing specific
has been stated from which a conclusion may be drawn that the
Respondent was assigned some specific duties and because of her
act or omission she failed to discharge those duties, which would
make her guilty of ‘misbehaviour’. As such the Charge No. IV is
also not proved.

As regards Charge No. VI
72. Charge No. VI relates to the decision of the APPSC to keep in
abeyance its own orders related to punishment awarded to candidates
found using unfair means and duty of Respondent to advise APPSC
against such abeyance. It posits that it was the duty of Ms. Mepung
Tadar Bage to advise against passing such an order of abeyance.
In response, the Respondent has specifically said that the APPSC
had taken a decision to impose a three-year ban on candidates
found to have been engaging in unfair practices. However, on the
receipt of several representations from the All Nyishi Students’ Union
to take a lenient view, the Secretary of the APPSC was directed to
collect detailed information regarding the practices adopted in other
State Public Service Commissions and the Union Public Service
Commission as there were no guidelines in this regard available in
the APPSC. In the absence of clear guidelines in this regard and
since there was no quantum of punishment prescribed, and for want
of collection of information, the decision was taken by the APPSC
on 06.06.2022 to keep the punishment orders in abeyance.
73. In our view, passing an order by the Commission to keep the
punishment in abeyance is a discharge of quasi-judicial function
of the Commission. Even a wrong decision taken bona-fide by the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2285

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

Commission in discharge of quasi-judicial function would not in any
manner fall within the definition of ‘misbehaviour’. In respect of any
collective decision of the Commission, the act of the Respondent
not advising individually in a particular manner contrary to the said
decision would not be termed even a lapse on her part.
74. In addition to the aforesaid, it is necessary to say that after the leakage
of the question paper for Mains Examination came to light, the State
made a reference to the Inquiry Committee. The Chairman and
fellow members of the APPSC submitted their resignation on moral
ground and for other reasons. Later, Major General Jarken Gamlin,
AVSM, SM, VSM (Retd.) was sworn in as State Chief Information
Commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. Tsering Naksang
was appointed as Chairperson of the Arunachal Pradesh Private
Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission. If the members of
the APPSC who were allegedly collectively found involved in the
paper leak as per the letter of Chief Minister, later resigned and got
assignment of new post by the State, it is a question to ponder upon,
which ought to be looked into by the State especially so when Article
319(d) of the Constitution of India bars members of a State Public
Service Commission from taking up any other employment either
under the Government of India or under the Government of a State
after they cease to be in office. In our view, if the members were
collectively involved, the act of the State Government bequeathing
responsibility upon such members, giving them assignment of posts
having responsibilities, clearly goes to indicate that there was nothing
against the Chairman or any Member of the Commission showing their
indictment in a personal capacity of committing any act or omission
which may prove misbehaviour on their part. In our view, the act
of the State requesting the Hon’ble President of India to initiate the
removal of the Respondent is arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory.
75. In view of the above, on taking a holistic approach to the charges
framed in the present reference and having gone through the
voluminous record and evidence which has been brought before
us, juxtaposed against the body of judicial precedent in the form of
previous reports under Article 317 of the Constitution of India which
guide our decision-making in the present reference, it is difficult to see
how the allegation of ‘misbehaviour’ on the part of the Respondent
has been proved. Indeed, it is true that the members of the Public
Service Commission must be put to higher standards and their
2286 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

conduct must be unimpeachable, but where the consequence of our
fact-finding inquiry would be the removal of the Chairman / Member
from a constitutional office, we must be abundantly cautioned and
tread carefully. In the present case, after appreciation of evidence,
we can see that from the very inception, from the report of the Inquiry
Committee, no specific allegation against the Respondent qua any
of the six charges was levelled. Chapter 7 of this report, which
forms the very basis of the present reference, merely makes some
suggestions for improvement in the functioning of the APPSC and to
adopt best practices. But it makes no adverse comment or personal
indictment against the Respondent. The intent of Article 317 of the
Constitution of India was to give a higher degree of protection to the
members of the Public Service Commission by eliminating political
or any pressure otherwise. In the present case, right from the very
beginning, the letter of the Chief Minister to the Governor dated
27.10.2022 states that “The Commission Members, with allegations
of tainted selection procedure cannot claim any immunity and should
have resigned on their own as was done by the Chairman APPSC”.
Likewise, the letter of the Hon’ble Governor to the Hon’ble President
of India dated 02.12.2022 states that the Respondent being the last
remaining member (others having tendered resignation) must be
removed and fresh Commission must be instituted to restore trust
in the Commission. Both the above letters impute responsibility for
the leakage of the question paper for the Mains Examination upon
the members of the Commission even though there was no such
finding in the Inquiry Report. In our opinion, these letters further make
it clear that the State dealt with the matter with a prejudice that the
Members of the Commission were responsible for the paper leakage
without sufficient material or evidence to reach such a conclusion.
These letters were toned in a manner that it was absolutely imperative
for the Members to resign and to constitute a new Commission for
resolving the issues of confidentiality.

76. The actions alleged against the Respondent do not meet the threshold
of ‘misbehaviour’, rather, they do not even meet the threshold of ‘lapse’
which has a lower threshold. It is not a case where the Respondent
was unable to maintain the standard of conduct expected of a
Member of a Commission and her actions alone brought disrepute
to the APPSC. No overt act by her has been shown to meet the
threshold of misbehaviour. As per the charges framed, it has been
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2287

In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission

argued before us that the Respondent, in the discharge of her official
duty failed to steer the Commission in a particular direction, be it
towards framing of new guidelines or not advising against keeping
in abeyance the punishment to those involved in unfair means. We
find this allegation to be wholly conjectural and liable to be rejected
outright because the Respondent could not be held responsible to
ensure that good sense prevailed in the Commission of which she
was a member. If the Commission by application of its collective
mind makes certain decisions, how far is it justified to single out
a member who has simply carried out her official duties when the
decisions eventually turn out to be wrong ones. To conclude that the
Respondent is liable for any of the allegations against her, it must be
shown first that she had a duty which she failed to discharge or fulfil.
77. When there is no evidence linking the present Respondent to the
leakage of the question paper of the Mains Examination, summarily
holding her responsible and seeking to remove her from office
on the pretext of not maintaining confidentiality in the work of the
Commission, would further erode the roots of the Constitutional
intent of Article 317 to protect the Members of the Public Service
Commission from political pressure. It cannot be lost sight of the
fact that as per the allegations, the working of the Commission is
alleged to have been marred with irregularities from as far back as
in 2017. Admittedly, the APPSC exemplified institutional lethargy in
bringing about new guidelines for conduct of examination, but the
Respondent joined the Commission as a Member in 2021, and the
incident of paper leakage occurred in 2022. She was required, as a
member of the Public Service Commission, to be exemplary in her
conduct, but she could not have been expected to right all wrongs
which had been perpetrated in the APPSC prior to her joining or to
single-handedly ensure that new guidelines are framed and the entire
examination process is reformed. There is nothing to show that her
conduct after joining in the form of any act or omission contributed
in any way to bringing disrepute to the APPSC.
78. Therefore, in our view, the reference made by the Hon’ble President of
India for the charges as alleged are not based on specific allegations
against the Respondent Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage in her individual
or official capacity. The allegations which are general in nature,
have not even been substantiated by bringing any cogent evidence
before us and as such we are of the view that the allegations have
2288 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

not been found proved in the fact-finding enquiry conducted by us
in exercise of the powers under Article 145(1)(j) of the Constitution
of India read with Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
79. As we have found that the charge of misbehaviour has not been
proved against the Respondent, the points of determination jointly
framed by the parties are answered accordingly.
80. In view of the foregoing, the inescapable conclusion on the allegations
of charges as made in the reference is that the allegations have not
been proved. In terms of Order XLIII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 and answering the reference under Article 317(1) of
the Constitution of India, this report with recommendation shall be
sent to the Hon’ble President of India that the charges as alleged
do not bring about any act of ‘misbehaviour’ by Ms. Mepung Tadar
Bage for taking action within its contours. We further recommend
that her suspension be revoked forthwith and she would be entitled
to all consequential and monetary benefits.

Result of the case: Reference answered.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose