Holding

Appointments made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 are void, but the State must first establish factual foundations and, unless it is impossible to separate innocent from corrupt candidates, cannot lawfully cancel all appointments en masse; the High Court’s blanket termination order is set aside and the matter remitted for fresh, segregated inquiry.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the termination of over 150 civil and judicial officers appointed by the Punjab Public Service Commission during the tenure of its chairman, who was alleged to have taken bribes and corrupted the selection process. The appellants argued that their services were dismissed without due process, violating Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution, the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, and principles of natural justice. The Court held that an appointment tainted by constitutional violations is a nullity, but the State must first establish foundational facts and, where possible, separate innocent candidates from the corrupt ones before cancelling appointments en masse. It also ruled that the two senior judges who headed the investigative committees should have recused themselves, though the appellants had waived that right. Consequently, the High Court’s order of blanket termination was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration with directions to form two independent committees to scrutinise executive and judicial appointments separately.

Issues considered

Whether the State can terminate appointments en masse on the basis of alleged mass corruption without separating tainted from non‑tainted candidates.
Whether appointments made in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution are void ab initio.
Whether the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 were complied with.
Whether the two judges who headed the investigative committees should have recused themselves from hearing the writ petitions.
Whether the doctrine of waiver bars the appellants from challenging the participation of those judges.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. Sec. 164
Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 16, s. Art. 311
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970s. Rule 23

Subjects

appointment cancellationmass terminationpublic service commissioncorruptionnatural justiceArticle 14Article 16Article 311waiver doctrinejudicial biassegregation of tainted candidatesprocedural fairness

Judgment

A INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON AND ORS.
v.
STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

MAY 3, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.)

Service Law.

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970: Rule 23.
c
Civil Services-Recruitment through State public Service Commission--
Mass corruption-En masse termination of appointments-Tainted candidates
and non-tainted candidates-Separation and segregation of--Chairman State
Public Service Commission alleged to have appointed a large number of
D persons on extraneous considerations including monetary consideration---
Vigi/ance Bureau of the State wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary alleging
that most of the examinations held during the period of the said Chairman
were tainted-The services of the nominated candidate5 (Class I Officers)
were terminated simpliciter i.e. by terminating the probation-Full Bench
dismissed the writ petition filed by the aggrieved candidates--Correctness
E of-Held: An appointment made in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution would be void-It would be a nullity-But before such a finding
can be arrived at the appointing authority must take into consideration the
foundational facts-Only when such foundational facts are established, the
legal principles can be applied-It was not impossible for the State to
separate the innocent people from the tainted ones-Jn the event it is found
F to be impossible or highly improbable to separate tainted cases from the non-
tainted cases, en-masse orders of termination could have been issued-High
Court judgment set aside-Matter remitted to High Court for consideration
ajresh--Constitution of India, 1950. Arts. /.I and 16.

Practice and Procedure :
G
Hearing of matter-Propriety of Judges-Mass corruption-En masses
termination of appointments-principles of natural justice--Chief Justice of
High Court constituted two committees chaired by two senior Judges to look

H 772
INOERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB 773
into allegation of illegal appointments-The said committees recommended A
cancellation of appointments-Full Court accepted the recommendation-
Writ petitions filed by the aggrieved candidates came up for hearing before
a Full Bench-Two of !he members of !he Full Bench were Chairman of the
two committees appoinled by !he Chief Justice-However, the counsel for the
writ petitioners stated /hat !hey had no objection lo 1he said Judges hearing B
the writ pelition-Ultimately the writ petitions dismissed-Correctness of-
Held: (Per Sinha, J, Bhandari, J dissenling)-Two senior Judges who had
headed the committees should not have been made part of the Bench-It was
not a case where /he doctrine of necessity was required to be invoked-Writ
petitioners might have waived their rights to objecl to !he said Judges-But
ii was clearly a case where /he Judges should have recused lhemselves from C
hearing the matter-II was for them to remind lhemselves 1ha1 justice is not
only done bul manifestly seen to be done-High Courl judgment se/ aside-
Matter remitted to High Courl for consideration afresh.

Doctrines :
D
"Doctrine of Waiver'' Experienced.

Certain allegations were made against the Chairman of the Punjab Public
Service Commission that, during his tenure between 1996 and 2002, he got
a large number of persons appointed on extraneous consideration including
monetary consideration. Result sheets of the nominated candidates were seized. E
The Vigilance Bureau of the State wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary,
alleging that most of the examinations held during the period of the said
Chairman were tainted. So far as the nominated candidates were concerned,
the Vigilance Department of the State received the answer sheets for the 1998
examination and sent a report to the investigating agency. On the same day F
itself the nominated candidates were given charge of the Executive Magistrate
but, on the next day, the Vigilance Bureau on purported receipt of the details
of interview of the nominated candidates sent a note to the Chief Secretary
whereupon orders of termination were passed. All the officers in the category
of nominated executive officers were about to complete their period of
probation. The services of the nominated candidates (Class I Offers) were G
terminated simpliciter purported to be in terms of the Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1970 i.e., by terminating the probation.

The appellants comprised of four categories of officers, that is to say,
(1) Direct recruits in Executive Class I. In the said category services of28
persons were terminated. (2) Direct recruits (Allied etc.) being in Executive H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Class II. In the said category services of 63 persons were terminated. (3)
Nominated Candidates being in Executive Class I. Services of 18 persons from
the said category were terminated. (4) Judicial Officers who were appointed
in four batches.

Services of the Direct Recruit Executive Class I and Class II Officers
B were terminated by way of dismissal from services only on the premise that
the criminal prosecution had been initiated against the aforementioned
Chairman.

So far as the Judicial Officers were concerned, indisputably, the High
Court acted on the basis of media reports alleging that the wards of some of
C the sitting Judges of the High Court have been favoured by the said chairman.
The Chief Justice of High Court constituted a Committee chaired by a senior
Judge. On a request made by the High Court answer sheets of nine candidates
were handed over to the said Committee. No other record was, however, made
available to the Committee. A report was submitted by the said Committee
D wherein recommendations were made that the appointments made of the
judicial offers in all the four batches should stand cancelled although selection
of the officers from the 1998 batch was not in question. The report, However,
was accepted by Full Court.

The appellants, being aggrieved by the said actions on the part of the
E State, filed writ petitions before the High Court. The said writ petitions came
up for hearing before a Full Bench of the High Court. Two of the members of
the said Beach were Chairmen of the two committees appointed by the Chief
Justice. At the hearing of the writ petitions, the appellants stated that they
had no objection to the said Judges hearing the writ petitions. Ultimately, the
F writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the appeal.

On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the principles of
natural justice had been violated as the contents of the reports of the Vigilance
Bureau were not disclosed to the appellants; that the State was not right in
terminating the services of the appellants on the basis of the purported case
G of mass corruption without making an attempt to separate the non-tainted
candidates from the tainted ones; and that two of the Judges who headed the
sub-committees being biased, they could not have taken part in the decision-
making process and they should have recused themselves.

Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB 775
Court A
HELD : Per Sinha, J

1. As appointment made in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India would be void. It would be a nullity. But before such a
finding can be arrived at the appointing authority must take into consideration B
the foundational facts. Only when such foundational facts are established, the
legal principles can be applied. (798-E]

State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCALE 247, relied on.

2.1. lfthe services of the appointees who had put in a few years of service C
were terminated, compliance of three principles at the hands of the State was
imperative, viz., to establish (1) Satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of
the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction
that the selection process was tainted; (2) determine the question that the
illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entire D
selection process. Such satisfac.tion as also the sufficiency of materials were
required to be gathered by reason of a though investigation in a fair and
transparent manner; (3) Whether the sufficient material present enabled the
State to arrive at the satisfaction that the officers in majority have been found
to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt.
(798-F,G] E

2.2. Apart from the inferences drawn on certain facts and in particular
the circumstance enumerated by the High Court, it is difficult to accept that
it was demonstrated by the State that it was absolutely impossible for it to
separate the innocent people from the tainted ones. (799-B, C]
F
2.3. It is also not a case where all the relevant records have been
destroyed. The vigilance Bureau does not say so. Questions papers, answer
sheets and other documents are available. Reports made by the Bureau were
prepared upon examination of the materials collected by it. The High Court
itself has noticed that what is not available is the record relating to the
procedure adopted in regard to appointment of paper setters. It may be true G
that such records could be destroyed only after a period of five years but it
has not been pointed out by the State as to how by reason of the non-availability
thereof, it became difficult for the authorities to arrive at the correct facts. It
has not been informed that the connecting materials were also destroyed. It
had been noticed by the High Court that all relevant information were available H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A and submitted to the court. It cannot, therefore, be said that a fair investigation
into the whole affair was an impossible task or despite availability of all such
records a thorough investigation had been made so as to arrive at a
satisfaction that the entire selection process suffered from a large scale fraud.
It has also not been found that all the appointments were made on extraneous
B considerations including monetary consideration. 1799-C-Fl

3.1. If fraud in the selection process was established, the State should
not have offered to hold a re-selection. Seniority of those who were reselected
ordinarily could not have been restored in their favour. Such an offer was
evidently made as the State was not sure about the involvement of a large
C number of employees. [799-F, GI

3.2. A distinction moreover exists between a proven case of mass
cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of
corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved.
[799-H; 800-AI
D
3.3. Only in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable
to separate tainted cases from the non-tainted cases, en-masse orders of
termination could have been issued. [801-DJ

Bihar School Examinution Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha, 119701 I
E SCC 648, Anamica Mishra v. UP. Public Service Commission, 119901 Supp.
SCC 692, SP. Biswas v. State Bunk of India, 119911 Supp. 2 SCC 354, Union
Territory ofChundigarh v. Dilbagh .\high. [199311SCC154, Krishan Yadav
v. State of Haryana, [199414 SCC 165, Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey.
[19941 5 SCC 663, Hanuman Prusad v. Union of lndiu, 11996110 SCC 742,
F Union of India v. 0. Chakradhar, 12002) 3 SCC 146, B. Ramanjini v. Stute of
A.P.. 1200215SCC533, Pritpul Singh v. State of Haryuna, 119941 5 SCC
695, Pramod lahudas v. State (Jf Maharashtra, [19961 to SCC 749, P.S.
Sathappan v. Andhra Bank ltd., 120041 11 SCC 672, M.P. Gopalakrishnan
Nair v. State of Kera/a, 120051 11 SCC 45, Haryana St..ite Coop. land
Development Bank v. Nee/am, 120051 5 SCC 91, Benny TD. v. Registrar of
G Cooperative Societies, 119981 5 SCC 269, Unkar Lal Bajaj v. Union on India,
[20031 2 SCC 673, Union of India v. Rajesh P. U Puthuvalnikathu, (2003( 7
SCC 285, Ashok Lenka v. Rishi Dikshit, (2006) 4 SCALE 519 and Ajay Hasia
v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, [ 19811 I SCC 722, referred to.

4.1. Two senior Judges who had headed the Committee should not have
H been made part of the Bench. It was not a case where the doctrine of necessity
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB 777

was required to be invoked. It may be that the counsel appearing on behalf of A
the Judicial Officers did not object to the Judges who were members of the
Committee to hear the matter. (814-E(

4.2. The writ petitioners, thus, might have waived their right to raise a
contention as regard bias on the part of the Hon'ble Judges but the same would
not mean that this Court would ignore such a vital fact. It was clearly a case B
where the Hon'ble Judges should have recused themselves from hearing the
matter. It was for them to remind themselves that Justice is not only done but
manifestly seen to be done. (815-F, G(

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC C
202, relied on.

Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, [1976) 3 SCC 585, State of
Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, Ashok Kumar
Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) Supp. SCR 657, Kumaon Manda! Vikas
Nigam Ltd v. Girja Shankar Pant, [2001) 1 SCC 182, Rupa Hurra v. Ashok D
Hurra, (20021 4 SCC 388 and M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of
M.P., [200418 SCC 788 referred to. .

In Re; Pinochet (19991 I All ER 577 and AWG Group Limited v.
Morrison, (200611 All ER 967, referred to.
E
5. The apprehension in the mind of judicial officers that inferences had
been drawn on the basis of non-existent facts cannot be ruled out. It was in
the aforementioned premise, that the officers should have at least been given
an opportunity to have a look at the reports on the basis whereof they had
been categorized as tainted officers. It is not possible to understand, if
ultimately, in the opinion of the High Court, the Judicial Offices were found F
to be entitled to look at the said report, why the copies thereof were not made
available to them or at least why inspection thereof was not given at an
appropriate time so as to enable them to make their submissions. Curiously
enough only when after the oral submissions were over and written
submissions have been filed, although the writ petition belonging to other G
categories of services were being heard, the arguments advanced on behalf of
the Judicial Officers were directed to be closed and only on the next date when
the counsel had no occasion to make comments upon the reports, the same
were read out in the Court and allowed to be inspected by the counsel. It may
be that the Superior Judiciary always makes endeavours to deal with the
judicial officers in all seriousness it deserves: but then such harsh H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A punishment may be meted out only when there are sufficient materials on
record so as to enable it to satisfy itself upon adopting a fair procedure. The
Judicial Officers were unfairly treated by the High Court. (818-B-Fl

6. The High Court was probably enthralled by the media reports that
two of the wards of its sitting Judges obtained appointment wrongly. It is,
B however, stated at the Bar that they were toppers of the Batch and in the First
Information Reports, their names had not been mentioned. Only because
wards of sitting Judges obtained employment, the same by itself would not
give rise to a presumption that everything was not well in the selection making
process. [818-F, GI
c 7. The impugned judgment as also the orders of the State Government
and the High Court are, thus, liable to be set aside. Although the impugned
judgments cannot be sustained, the interest of justice would be sub-served if
the matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matters
afresh. However, with a view to segregate between the tainted and the non-
D tainted and that in the interest of justice the High Court is requested to
constitute two independent scrutiny committees - one relating to the executive
officers and the other relating to the judicial officers. (819-D, El

Per Bhandari, J (concurring with the conclusions and findings on all
the issues except on the issue of propriety of hearing of the matter by the
E Judges who were on the Committee! :

I.I. The peculiar facts of this case which need to be highlighted are
that some of the candidates have worked for about three years and their
services were terminated only on the basis of criminal investigation which
was at the initial stage. The termination of their services as a consequence of
F cancellation of selection would not only prejudice their interests seriously,
but would ruin their entire future career. f836-BJ

1.2. It may be pertinent to mention that during the said period there
has been no allegation regarding the integrity or efficiency of these officers.
(836-Cf
G
2. A close scrutiny of the facts of this case clearly reveals that the
judicial officers did not get a fair treatment by the High Court. They were not
given copies of the Report and other material on which reliance was placed
and they virtually had no chance of making effective representation before
H the Committee or any other forum where they could ventilate their grievances
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB 779
and present their point of view. [836-F[ A
Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, (2003[ 7 SCC 285,
Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (19911[ Supp. SCC 692,
SP. Biswas v. State Bank ofIndia, [1991[ Supp. 2 SCC 354, Onkar Lal Bajaj
v. Union ofIndia, (2003[ 2 SCC 673, Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow,
[1976[ 3 SCC 585, State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, [1982[ B
2 SCC 463 and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [19851 Supp. SCR
657, referred to.

3. The High Court has not considered the case in the proper
perspective. The consequences of en masse cancellation would carry a big
stigma particularly on cancellation of the selections which took place because C
of serious charges of corruption. The question arises whether for the misdeeds
of some candidates, honest and good candidates should also suffer on en masse
cancellation leading to termination of their services. Should those honest
candidates be compelled to suffer without there being any fault on their part
just because the respondents find it difficult to segregate the cases of tainted D
candidates from the other candidates? The task may be difficult for the
respondents, but in the interest of all concerned and particularly in the
interest of honest candidates, the State must undertake this task. The
unscrupulous candidates should not be allowed to damage the entire system
in such a manner where innocent people also st1ffer great ignominy and
stigma. (836-H; 837-A-C[ E
Kumaon Mnda/ Nigam ltd. v. Gilja Shankar Pant, [2001[ I SCC 182
and Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, [20021 4 SCC 388 referred, to.

Jn Re: Pinochet (1999[ 1 All ER 577, referred to.

16 Ha/sbury's laws ofEngland, (4th Edn.) Para 1471, referred to. F
4.1. There is not merit in the submission of the appellants that the two
members of the committee (appointed by the High Court) should not have been
part of the Full Bench constituted by the Chief Justice. Jn these cases, before
hearing commenced, the counsel appearing for the appellants clearly consented
to hearing of the matter by the Judges of the Full Bench. After giving clear G
consent before the High Court, they cannot be permitted to make any grievance
.• before this Court. This tendency should not be encouraged. (838-C, D[

4.2. Jn the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are not
justified in making any grievance before this Court regarding the hearing of

- the cases by the Full Bench of which the two Judges, who had submitted the H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Report, were also members. Admittedly, those Judges constituting the Full
Hench had no interest of any kind in deciding the matter one way or the other.
The appellants before the commencement of hearing categorically submitted
that they had no objection whatsoever to the hearing of the matter by the said
Full Bench. Even assuming, those Judge had any bias against the appellants,
B the appellants had waived their right, if any. In these circumstances, the
doctrine of 'waiver' is fully applicable. [840-C-El

Kammins Ballrooms Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) ltd., (19701
2 All ER 871, Earl of Darnley v. London, Chatham and Dover Rly Co., (1867)
LR 2 HL 43, Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd.,
C (1947) KB 130, Scherer v. Wahlstrom Tax Civ. APP., 318 S.W. 2d 456, Smith
v. Mcknight Tax Civ, App., 240 S.W, 2d 368, Covington Virginian v. Woods 29
S.E. 2d, 406 and Missouri State life Ins. Co. v. le Fevre, Tex 10 S.W. 2d 267,
referred to.

5. Another significant aspect of this matter is that the two Judges (who
D were part of the Committee) were not impleaded as parties in the writ petition
before the high Court and they have not been impleaded as parties in these
appeals before this Court. In case, the appellants were so keen to level
allegations against those two Judges, the appellants ought to have impleaded
them as parties at least before this Court (with the permission of the Court).
This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice.
E 1842-A, BJ

Joseph Vilangandan v. Executil/IJ Engineer, [1978) 3 SCC 36 and Mis.
Erusian Equipment and Chemical Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (·1975) l SCC
70, relied on.

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3411-3421 of
2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.7.2003 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. Nos. 8423, 8434, 8585, 8587, 8592,
G 8595, 8740, 8741, 8742, 8954. 8957 of2002.
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3422, 3410, 3409, 3405-3408, 3456-59, 3446-3447,
3402,3449-3455,3463-64,3460,3401,3445,3399,3404,3444,3441,3439,3428-
3436,3440,3438,3442,3437,3403,3427,3461,3400,3477,3475,3423,3448,
H 3472-74, 3489, 3491 of2005 and W.P (C) No. 14 of2004.
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON "·STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 78)

Samp Singh, Add[. Adv. Gen of Punjab, R.K. Rath ore, AAG of Punjab, A
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, A.K. Ganguli, Mahabir Singh, B.S. Malik, Rajiv Atma R_am,
Rakesh Dwivedi, P.P. Rao, Manoj Swamp, Aspj~.~. Mohan, Uday Gupta, Neeraj
Sharma, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Madhusmita Bora, Nikhil
Jain, D. Mahesh Babu, Naresh Kumar, Nidhesh Gupta, Nidhi Gupta, Vinod
Shukla, S. Janani, Dinesh Verma, Suresh Kumari, A.P. Mohanty, J.P. Tripathi, B
S.C. Paul, G.S. Mann, Roopa Paul, Chanchal Goel, Rekha Pandey, Sushi!
Kumar Jain, Prathibha Jain, Ram Niwas, A.P. Dhanija, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad
Singhania, Pradeep Agarwal, Balkrishan Sharma, Gurminder Singh Rani
Maheshwari, Pratibha Jain, Puneet Bali, Prabhjit Jauhar, Anita Narwal, S.S.
Jauhar, S.B. Upadhyay, Shiv Mangat Shanna, Sanjay Das, Ajay Bansal, Neeraj
Kumar Jain, Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ugra C
Shankar Prasad, Ashok K. Mahajan, ParamjitBatta, Vineet Bhagat, Debasis
Misra, Rajshekhar Rao, Nikhil Nayyar, Vipin Gogia, Jaspreet Gogia, Gurinder
P. Singh, K.K. Gogia, Jayashree Anand, Kamna Karmahali, Rana Ranjit Singh,
R.C. Kohil, P.N. Puri, Vimla Sinha, Abhushek Chaudhary, Gaurav Bhatia, Saad
Shervani, Niranjana Singh, Gaurav Liberahan, Adarsh Upadhyay, Arun K.
Sinha, Rakesh Singh, Mukesh Kumar Sinha, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur D
(for Mis. Amputham Aruna & Co.,) Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Bimal Roy Jad and
M.P. Shorawala for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. The framers of the Constitution of India created some E
Constitutional Institlttions to uphold the Constitutional values; Public Service
Commission being one of them. Article 315 of the Constitution of India
mandates that there shall be a Public Service Commission for the Union and
a Public Service Commission for each of the State. Article 320 provides for
the functions of the Public Service Commission stating that it is the duty of F
the Union Public Service Commission and the State Public Service
Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the
Union and the services of the State respectively. In relation to certain matters
the Union of India and the States are enjoined with the duties to consult the
Public Service Commission. With a view to uphold the dignity and
independence of the Public Service Commission, the salaries, allowances and G
pensions payable to the members or staff of the Commission, are directed to
be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and/or the Consolidated Fund
of the State. A Chairman of Public Service Commission is removable only by
following the procedure laid down under the Constitution of India.
~·
H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A One Shri Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu was the Chairman of the Punjab
Public Service Commission between 1996 to 2002. Allegations were made
against him that he got a large number of persons appointed on extraneous
consideration including monetary consideration. Such appointments were said
to have been made during the period 1998 to 2001. Raids were conducted in
his house on more than one occasion. A large sum of money (about Rs. 16
B crores) was recovered from his custody and other relatives. Two First
Information Reports; one on 25.3.2002 being FIR No. 7/02 and the other on
30.4.2002 being FIR No. 24/02; were lodged against him in that behalf. In the
said First Information Reports nine officers of PCS (Executive Branch) were
named but later on the allegations against two of them, viz., Rahul and Randip
C were withdrawn. As against sixty three officers involved in the PCS allied
services; First Information Report was lodged only against one Kamaljeet
Singh. So far as appointment to the posts of Tehsildar is concerned, FIR was
lodged against none.

Result sheets of the nominated candidates were seized on 17.5.2002.
D Answer sheets of PCS (Executive Branch) were also seized. On or about
21.5.2002 the Vigilance Bureau of the State of Punjab wrote a letter to the Chief
Secretary, Punjab alleging that most of the examinations held during the
period of Shri Sidhu were tainted. On the next day, a memorandum of 90 pages
was issued. So far as the nominated candidates are concerned, Vigilance
E Department of State, as noticed hereinbefore, received the answer sheets for
1998 examination and sent a report to the investigating agency on 21.5.2002.
On that date itself the nominated candidates were given charge of the Executive
Magistrate but on the next date, i.e., on 22.5.2002, the Vigilance Bureau on
purported receipt of the details of interview of nominated candidates sent a
note to a Chief Secretary whereupon orders of termination were passed on
F 23.5.2002. All the officers in the category of nominated executive officers were
about to complete their period of probation. The services of the nominated
candidates (Class I Officers) were terminated simpliciter purported to be in
terms of the Rules, i.e., by terminating the probation.

The appellants herein comprise of four categories of officers, that is to
G say, (I) Direct recruits in Executive Class I. In the said category services of
28 persons were terminated. (2) Direct recruits (Allied etc.) being in Executive
Class II. In the said category services of 63 persons were terminated. (3)
Nominated candidates being in Executive Class I. Services of 18 persons from
the said category were terminated. (4) Judicial Officers. Judicial Officers were
H appointed in four batches. Four examinations were held for the respective .
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 783
recruitment years of 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. A
On the judicial side, following vacancies existed:

1998 21

1999 14 B
2000 8

2001 21

Total 64
c
The number of officers whose services were terminated in the
aforementioned batches are 21, 14, 8, 21 respectively totalling 64 persons
respectively.

A further vigilance report was made on 7.6.2002. Admittedly no D
appointment was made out from the 2001 batch.

Services of the Direct Recruit Executive Class I and Class II were
terminated by way of dismissal from services vide order dated 24.8.2002 only
on the premise that the criminal prosecution had been initiated against the
aforementioned Shri Sidhu.

Besides the aforementioned categories some candidates also belong to
distinct categories, viz., Freedom Fighter, Handicapped, SCOP, etc.

So far as the Judicial Officers are concerned, indisputably,. the High
Court acted on the basis of media reports alleging that wards of some sitting
Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court have been favoured by the
Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Chief Justice of the High
Court constituted a Committee chaired by a senior Judge. On a request made
by the High Court answer sheets of nine candidates were handed over to the
said Committee on 30.5.2002. No other record was, however: made available
to the Committee. A report was submitted by the said Committee wherein
recommendations were made that the appointments made of the judicial officers
in all the four batches should stand cancelled although selection of the
officers from the 1998 batch was not in question. The said report, however,
was accepted by the Full Court.
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A When the recommendations of the High Court were received by the
Government of Punjab, a query was raised as to on what basis the
recommendations for cancellation of the appointments of the 1998 batch
candidates were made. Thereupon, another Committee was constituted. The
Chairman of the said Committee was a member of the earlier Committee. The
report of the Committee thereafter was again placed before the Full Court and
B the same was approved on 12.8.2002. The services of the Judicial Officers
were terminated on 27.9.2002.

Subsequent to the said orders of dismissal, however, no further action
was taken by the State for cancellation of other examinations or termination
C of the officers belonging to other services. However, in regard to the
examinations held in respect of the other posts, the Governor of Punjab
appointed a committee on 20th July, 2004. A report was submitted by the said
Committee on 20th October, 2004 stating that a distinction is possible to be
made between the tainted and the non-tainted officers. It made some
suggestions and recommendations in relation to the selection process to be
D resorted to and the appointments to be made in future.

At this juncture, we may take note of some other relevant facts. Upon
commencement of the investigation by the Vigilance Bureau one Jagman
Singh became an approver. He purported to have made a statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a learned Magistrate on
E 24.1.2002. Two other alleged accomplices of Shri Sidhu, viz., Shri Prem Sagar
and Shri Paramjit Singh also allegedly made their statements in term of Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a learned Magistrate on 13.5.2002.
On the basis of the said statements; raids for finding out other and further
incriminating materials were conducted on 19th April, 2002 at different places
p including the lockers/fixed deposits/bank accounts purported to have been
opened by Shri Sidhu in his own name as also in the name of his relatives.
Approximately a sum of Rs. 16 crores was recovered during the said raids.

The Appellants herein along with some others being aggrieved by the
said actions on the part of the State filed a large number of writ petitions
G before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The said writ petitions ultimately came up for ht:aring before a Full .
Bench of the said High Court. Two of the members of the said Bench were
Chairmen of the two committees appointed by the learned Chief Justice.

H At the hearing of the said writ petition, however, the learned counsel
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 785

appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners stated that they had no objection A
to the said Hon 'hie Judges hearing the writ petitions. On or about 30th
January, 2002, the Appellants - Judicial Officers filed an application for supply
of copies of the reports as also the documents including the answer books
which had been relied upon by the High Court at one point of time or the
other for the purpose of passing the orders of termination. The High Court
claimed privilege as regards the reports of the Committee. The State of Punjab B
also took a stand that the contents of the report of the Vigilance Bureau could
not be disclosed, as by reasons thereof, the investigation of the case may be
put in jeopardy. Oral submissions on behalf of the Judicial Officers were
closed on 5.2.2003 and they/ were asked to file written submissions by 6.2.2003;
but curiously, however, on 6.2.2003, the reports of the Committee as also the C
mark-sheets were made available for inspection of the learned counsel.

During hearing before the High court, interestingly, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State made a statement that those candidates who
had become successful in the subsequent re-conducted interviews or re-
conducted examinations, as the case may be, shall be taken back in service D
and their seniority would be maintained.

The High Court reserved its judgment on 5.3.2003. On that date, some
records were kept in a sealed cover. By reason of the impugned judgment
which was delivered on 7.7.2003, the writ petitions were dismissed.
E
The main contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners before the
High Court were:

(I) in terminating the services, the State committed gross violation
of the provisions of Article 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution
of India; F
(2) Principles of natural justice were completely given a go-by by
the Stae in passing the impugned orders oftermination.

(3) Some of the Appellants having successfully completed three
years of probation, they would be deemed to have been confirmed G
in terms of Rule 23 of the 1976 Rules and, thus, their services
could not have been terminated without holding regular inquiry
in terms of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1970 (for short, 'the 1970 Rules');

(4) In any event, Rule 23 of the 1970 Rules could not have been H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A invoked for dispensing with the services of such of the
Appellants as it had not been shown that their work, conduct
and performance were unsatisfactory during the period of
probation;
(5) No proper material by way of admissible evidence having been
B made available, on the basis whereof the State could form a
bona fide opinion that the entire selection processes were tainted,
the impugned orders of termination must be held to be bad in
law.

The contentions raised on behalf of the State, on the other hand, were
C that:
(I) Shri Sidhu during his tenure from September, 1996 to March 26,
2002 exercised the powers of the Commission himself to the
exclusion of all other members, which itself establishes that the
selection processes were bad in law;
D (2) Writ petitions were filed by the members of the State Commission
contending that Shri Sidhu had manipulated the system for
ensuring the selection of only those who had paid money or had
recommendations of the high authorities.
(3) The satisfaction of the. State was based upon the report of the
E Vigilance Bureau which included the statements made by Shri
Jagman Singh which clearly pointed to the guilt of Shri Sidhu as
he had disclosed that that Shri Sidhu had made a large number
of appointments of the prospective candidates and during
investigation it was revealed that question papers and answer
F scripts were smuggled out of the headquarters of the Commission
and at times, blank answer sheets had been handed over to the
candidates and special instructions had also been issued to the
examiners to award higher marks to the less meritorious
candidates and at the same time, award less marks to the more
meritorious candidates.
G
(5) Shri Sindhu amassed assets worth Rs. 22 crores during his
chairmanship by adopting illegal means.
(6) The entire selection process was completely vitiated and it was
not possible to separate the meritorious candidates from the
H others although the decision to terminate all the appointments
lNDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 787

and cancellation of all the examinations was fair and bona fide. A
The contentions raised on behalf of the High Court were that:

(I) The services of the judicial officers were terminated as it came
to light that the recommendations made during the tenure of 3hri
Sidhu were manipulated, unfair and vitiated in law.
B
(2) Two sub-committees were constituted to look into the illegalities
and irregularities committed by the Commission in the matter of
selection of the judicial officers and the reports submitted by
them were rightly accepted by the Full Court, pursuant to and
in furtherance whereof the State Government terminated their
services. c
The High Court in passing the impugned judgment considered the
aforementioned submissions of the parties. It noticed a large number of
decisions and opined that the foilowing propositions be culled out therefrom:

"(i) The rules of natural justice are not required to be followed in D
cases of cancellation of selection which is vitiated due to fraud,
manipulation, corruption or large scale irregularities and illegalities
committed by those responsible for conducting the selection.

(ii) Even if some deserving candidates suffer on account of cancellation
of such selection, the decision taken by the competent authority E
cannot be castigated as arbitrary or unreasonable.

(iii) The Court cannot sustain the selection of some persons where the
process of selection is vitiated due to manipulations, fraud etc. and
it is in public interest that the entire selection is nullified.
F
(iv) The court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the competent
authority. If some tangible material is available with the government
for forming an opinion that the selection is tainted, the court cannot
interfere with its decision."

The Full Bench of the High Court, however, did not ll)ake any endeavour G
to make any distinction between the cases of different categories of officers,
but relying on or on the basis of the reports and documents submitted by
the Vigilance Bureau opined that the same revealed the following features:

(a) Either question papers were leaked to the candidates or instructions
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A were given to the examiners to give higher marks.

(b) In some cases, the marks awarded to the candidates were
manipulated and upgraded.

(c) The result-sheets recovered from the Commission revealed that
most of the candidates who paid money had been given very high
B
marks in the interview.

(d) Those candidates who secured high marks in the written examintion
were given poor marks in the interview either because they were not
to be selected and they had not paid money or for shunting them to
c the Allied Services.

(e) The procedure for appointment of examiners was entirely controlled
by Shri Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu and he gave instructions for award
of specific marks to the chosen candidates."

(f) Some of the irregularities found in the answer-books of some of the
D candidates selected for direct recruitment were taken into consideration
by the High Court by way of illustration in arriving at its findings.

The High Court moreover pointed out some irregularities found in the
answer sheets of the some of the candidates in regard whereto 13 purported
E instances were noticed by it. Cases of some of the candidates who were
denied selection to PCS (EB) by giving unusually low marks in the interview
were highlighted in the judgment. As many as nine such cases were noticed
to have been belonging to this category of irregularities. The High Court
furthermore noticed the purported irregularities in the recrnitments made for
appointment to PCS (Judicial Branch) from the written submissions made by
F the State in respect whereof, cases of 10 candidates had specifically been
noticed. So far as the purported similarity in grant of marks in the interview
is concerned, the High Court noticed that out of the 263 candidates interviewed
for selection for direct recruitment to PCS (Executive Branch) and Allied
Services, 172 candidates were given identical marks by the interviewers. 230
candidates had obtained marks having difference of one mark and 58 candidates
G having difference of two marks. So far as the nominated candidates are
concerned, the High Court noticed that no allegation could be made as
regards the irregularities and illegalities in conducting the written examination,
but opined:

"(I) In Register A-1 and Register C (year 1996) pertaining to nominated
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 789
candidates, there is I 00% identity for both selectees and non-selectees. A
In case of Register A-2 for year 1994, there is 100% identity in case
of award of marks to 3 selectees. Considering the overall position of
18 selectees, there is a difference of I mark of I out of 3 interviewers
in the marks of one candidate. Thus, same number of marks were
awarded to more than 95% candidates.
B
(2) Even if all the 141 nominated candidates are considered there is
a difference of I mark in 22 out of 25 cases. Larger difference is found
only in 3 cases. Then in 9 cases only one interviewer differs by I mark
and in I case one interviewer differs by 2 marks. This again indicates
an unusual pattern showing pre-planning and manipulation. Here also, C
same number of marks were awarded to more than 98% candidates."

It furthermore noticed certain general features in respect of the marks
given at the via-voce to the other candidates.

The judgment of the High Court can be divided into two parts.
D
(A) The High Court in general opined:

"From the above discussion and examination of the aforesaid
illustrative cases and looking into the record including the statements
of the alleged touts as made in court under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, there is no manner of doubt that it is not in a E
few cases only that corrupt means were adopted to secure the selection
of candidates but the same modus operandi was being adopted in all
the selections which vitiated the entire process of selections and that
large scale corruption, irregularities, manipulation of marks and other
illegalities are writ large in making selections by the Commission F
during the tenure of Shri Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu. We have perused
the statements of the alleged touts who have given the details of the
modus operandi adopted by Shri Sidhu. The examiners were instructed
to award specific number of marks to the chosen candidates and pull
down the others which resulted, in the ouster of many meritorious
candidates. In some cases, question papers were given to the G
candidates one evening before the examination. There has been
manipulation of marks in large number of cases to ensure the selection
of favoured candidates at the cost of other meritorious candidates.
The entire selection process during the tenure of Shri Sidhu was
indeed a one man show. He appointed the examiners of his confidence H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A who were playing to his tunes and whom he could trust in carrying
out his nefarious plans. He could, indeed, get any one selected who
could approach him either though money or through "Sifarish''. It is
difficult to scry if one could be selected on merit during the tenure
of Shri Sidhu and mcry be some were selected on merit as well but
the whole process of selection having been polluted with corruption,
B it is not possible to identify them. The statements as made by the
alleged touts were cross checkt!d by the Vigilance Department and
the government and it was found that corruption was all pervasive
in the selection of candidates to different services during the tenure
of Shri Sidhu."
c [Emphasis supplied]

(B) In regard to the Judicial Officers, it was opined:

"In the case of selection of PCS Judicial Officers, the High Coun on
its administrative side had also examined the records including the
D answer sheets and noticed that the answer sheets of some of the non-
selected candidates were qualitatively better than those selected and
that the perfonnance of most of the selected candidates was below
average and that the marks given to them were disproportionate to
their answers which even by the most liberal standards could not be
E justified. The High Court also found that there had been large scale
tampering of marks in some of the answer sheets and that selections
had not been made on merit.

During the course of arguments, the record was produced before us
including the answer sheets. We perused quite a few of them and
F found that the irregularities as pointed out in the earlier part of the
judgment are there. Some of the answer sheets show that there are
interpolations with the marks originally allotted by the examiners and
this was obviously done with a view to ensure the selection of those
candidates. The State Government was, therefore, justified in
cancelling the selections in entirety and no fault can be found with
G its decision in this regard because in these circumstances grain
could not be separated from the chaff and the meritorious candidates
had also to suffer."

[Emphasis supplied]

H
INDERPREETSINGH KAHLON r. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 79]

We have heard a large number of counsel appearing in the appeals A
representing different categories of the appellants.

The principal submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are:

(I) As the appellants had become civil servants, their services were
protected in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, B
and, thus, the orders of termination having been passed without
complying with the provisions of the statutory rules as also the
principles of natural justice, the same were vitiated in law.
(2) As the appellants served the State without any blemish on their
part whatsoever, and having passed departmental examinations
and having been given higher responsibilities, their services
c
could not have been terminated on the basis of the purported
case of mass corruption without making an attempt to separate
the non-tainted candidates from the tainted ones and that too
in great haste and, that too without taking into consideration the
relevant materials. The impugned orders also suffer from total D
non-application of mind on the part of the authorities of the
State.
(3) The broad proposition, that all decisions taken during the period
of Shri Sidhu were illegal, demonstrates arbitrary approach on
the part of the State. E
(4) The services of the nominated candidates could not have been
terminated during and/or on the expiry of the period of probation
in view of the protection to the employees conferred under
Article 311 of the Constitution of India could not have been
ignored. In any event, during the period of probation, their F
service could not have been terminated without initiating an
appropriate disciplinary proceeding on the ground of misconduct.
Some of the probationers in view of Rule 23 of the 1976 Rules
having crossed the maximum period of probation would be
deemed to have been confirmed. It was pointed out that five
probationers had already crossed the specified period of 3 years G
of probat:on and remaining I 3 were nearing completion of the
said period.
(5) When an order of termination of services carries a clear imputation
of corruption, the same would amount to dismissal from services
H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A requiring compliance of principles of natural justice.
(6) Before the services of the probationers could b1: terminated the
juristic foundation and stigma attached thereto were required to
be considered for determining the question as to whether the
dismissal was for non-satisfactory performance of service or
B stigmatic in nature.
(7) While the names are registered after the selection, cancellation
of the selection would mean cancellation of the entry from the
register and thus, Rule 17 of the Rules were violated.
(8) The High Court committed a serious error in holding that the
C orders passed by the State Government were sustainable in law
relying on the decisions of this Court which can be classified as
under:
(a) Cases where the 'event' has been investigated;
(b) Cases where tainted were separated from the non-tainted;
D
(c) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed
conclusively;
(d) Cases where the selection was made but appointment was not
made;
E (e) Cases where the candidates were ineligible and appointments were
found to be contrary to law or rules;
(f) Cases where there was hardly any time gap in between appointment
and the criminal investigation.
F (9) Writ petitioners had legitimate expectations that their services
would be confirmed.
(JO) If omnibus orders based on such facts could be issued, there
was no reason as to why if all the selections were tainted, no
action had been taken in regard to the selections made in other
G years or for other services.
(11) lo view of the fact that the State Government itself had constituted
a sub-committee is suggestive of the fact that the Government
itself was not satisfied that the reports of the Vigilance Bureau
were to be treated as sacrosanct.
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 793
(12) The Vigilance reports were found to be otherwise based on A
insufficient evidence and, thus, a separate committee was felt
necessary to be constituted for finding out the truth.
(13) Before any action was taken, it was necessary for the State to
satisfy itself about the allegations made therein upon verifying
the contents of the reports in regard to the mat-functioning of B
the Punjab Public Service Commission.
(14) The decision of the State having been taken in undue haste, the
same was ma/a fide in nature.
(15) The principles of natural justice have been violated as the
contents of the reports of the Vigilance were not disclosed to the
c
appellants and in any event the State could not have claimed
privilege in respect thereto.
(16) For the purpose of punishing the persons who have taken
recourse to illegal measures, no honest and innocent candidate
D
could have been punished.
(17) The High Court acted illegally and without jurisdiction in relying
upon the written submissions made on behalf of the State
although, many statements made therein were not made on
affidavit.
E
(18) Grant of inspection of the answer sheets alone was not sufficient
in the instant case as the orders passed by the Sta.te were
required to be judged on the basis of the statements contained
therein and supported by the affidavits.
(19) It is not unusual that the candidates may get higher marks in the F
written examination and less in the interview.
(20) As the State has alleged fraud, a heavy burden lay upon it to
prove the same which is utterly failed to comply with. The High
Court failed to take into consideration that the interview
committees were headed by sitting Judges of the High Court and G
thus it is preposterous to suggest that any illegality was
.committed in the interviews.
(21) Four different selection processes having been undergone in
four different years, all selections could not have been painted
with the same brush, so far as advertisements were separate as H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006f SUPP. I S.C.R.

A well as the members of the committees were different and,
particularly, having regard to the fact that there was no allegation
that the Chairman of the Commission could prevail over the
other members as also in view of the fact that it is expert alone
who gives the grading.

B (22) Out of the I 0 candidates who were named in the first information
report, 7 candidates belonged to 200 I batch who had not been
appointed at all and, thus, only because one or two candidates
happened to be the wards of sitting Judges of the High Court,
although they were toppers of their batch, the services of all of
them could not have been terminated.
c
(23) The sub-committee in its report took notice of answer sheets of
only 9 candidates and, furthermore no inquiry having been
conducted in relation to the 1998 batch, the Full Court of the
High Court must be held to have failed to apply its mind properly.
D (24) Two of the Hon 'ble Judges who headed the sub-committees
being biased, they could not have taken part in the decision
making process and they should have recused themselves.

The High Court also ~ommitted a serious error in relying upon the
decisions where the principles of natural justice have been held to be
E inapplicable as the said cases relatt: to:

(I) mass cheating adopted by the students in a Board Examination;
(2) Where select lists have been prepared but no appointments
have been made;
F (3) Where appointments have been made but eligibility criteria have
been found to have been violated;
(4) Where in no way verifications could have been made as answer
sheets and other rekvant documents were destroyed and the
Chairman had resigned;
G
(5) Where commission of mal practices were found to be apparent
on the face of the records;

Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of Punjab, on the other hand, submitted that:
H
(a) the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 795
with nor the requirements of the statutory provisions for A
dispensation of services of the officers in terms of Article 311
of the Constitution of India were required to be followed, as the
Chairman of the Public Service Commission has usurped complete
control thereover in breach of the rules as would be evident from
the fact that two members of the Commission even filed writ
petitions being CWP No. 14491 of 1997 and CWP No. 7952 of B
200 I alleging that the Chairman had not been convening meetings
of the Commission and had usurped complete control thereover.
(b) Materials collected by the State before 23.5.2002 demonstrated
commission of large scale fraud in the selection process wherefor
two First Information Reports being FIR No. 7 dated 25.3.2002 c
and FIR No. 24 dated 30.4.2002 were registered.
(c) During investigation, the statements of Jagman Singh were
recorded which clearly demonstrated that with the help of various
persons, many candidates paid huge amount to Shri Sidhu for
getting selected in I998 examinations and money, so collected, D
was stashed in the lockers and put in the bank accounts of the
relatives ofShri Sidhu, most of whom now have left the country
and have been declared as proclaimed offenders. 56 accounts
were opened between the period I 7.4.2002 and 19.4.2002 and
over Rs. 16 crores were recovered from the lockers/bank accounts/
E
fixed deposits standing in the name of the Shri Sidhu and his
relatives.
(d) A huge amount has also been transferred through Hawala
transactions. The Investigating Officer had also recorded the
inculpating statements of Shri Jaspreet Singh and others which
F
clearly point out that serious illegalities were committed in the
selection making process.
(e) It is nobody's case that the Chairman did not indulge in
corruption.
(f) Upon analyzing the mark sheets and other materials, the Vigilance G

- Bureau submitted its report wherein inter alia it was found that
in 95% cases the Chairman and Members allotted identical marks
in the interview to the candidates which is next to impossible as
the members and the Chairman were supposed to judge the

- capabilities of the candidates separately which clearly show that
H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the provision of Rule 17 (a) (iii) of the Commission Rules were
flagrantly violated or breached.

Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High
Court submitted that :

(0 as the selection of the Judicial Officers was contaminated at
B
source, keeping in view the nature of judicial posts, the High
Court was bound to take remedial measures to restore the
credibility of recruitment process and to safeguard the
independence of judiciary.
(iO In view of the fact that the High Court found the matter to be
c a case of pollution of selection at the source on account of
corruption, the Full Court of the High Court was convinced that
the selections were vitiated and thus, no illegality has been
committed in giving effect to the legal consequences arising
thereunder.
D (iii) The recommendations of the sub-committc:es being based on
some material and being in the nature of administrative decision,
the standard of proof, required to be applied, would be
preponderance of probability not beyond all reasonable doubts.
(iv) In view of the well settled principles of law that justice should
E not only be done but manifestly also seen to be done, the
selection of the Judicial Officers was not only required to be fair
but also transparent.
(v) Jn the fresh selection only 13 candidates were selected and 22
were not selected and in view of the fact that there was no
F complaint against the fresh selection, the High Court must be
held to have proceeded on an objective criteria.
(vi) It is not open to the appellants herein to allege bias on the part
of the two learned Judges of the High Court on the premise that
they were in the Committee as the appellants themselves had
G consented to their taking part in the hearing and, thus, they
must be deemed to have waived their right.

We will make endeavours to deal with the cases of different categories
of officers separately as far as practicable.

H Appointments to PCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services relate to
INDERPREETSINGH KAHLON I'. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.) 797
a single recruitment process. The vacancies were of the year 1994 and 1996 A
and those vacancies were advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission
in tenns of Advertisement No. I0 dated 7.2.1998. This advertisement pertained
to 93 posts of different cadres of the State Government. Out of the
aforementioned 93 posts, 28 posts were in PCS (Executive Branch).

There were 25 additional posts to be filled up by the nominated B
departmental candidates. However, out of the said vacant posts only 18 were
filled up. Amongst the 18 nominated candidates, 14 have been named by the
witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and F!Rs were lodged against them. We have noticed
hereinbefore that out of total 28 candidates PCS (Executive Branch), although, C
at the initial stage First Infonnation Reports were lodged only against 8
candidates, allegations against Rahul Gupta who is said to be the son of
another member of the Commission and Randeep Singh were withdrawn.

In the Allied Services out of 63 candidates, First lnfonnation Report was
lodged as against only one of them. So far as those who were appointed on D
the post of Tehsildars are concerned, out of 19, First Information Report was
lodged against none.

It would be of some interest to note that as although in the year 1998,
a large number of persons were selected in other services as for example, 365
PCMS Doctors, 60 School Principals, 147 Veterinary Officers, 422 PCMS Doctors E
and in the year 1999, 52 Medical Officers Dental, 147 Agriculture Development
Officers, 69 Veterinary Officers and 81 Veterinary Officers in 2002 but neither
any enquiry was conducted by the State in this behalf nor any action was
taken to tenninate the services of any of the candidates of the said service.

The State admittedly conducted fresh interview for the nominated F
candidates and held fresh examinations in respect of the Executive Officers
and non-Executive Officers. So far as the nominated members are concerned,
three came to be re-selected out of 19 Tehsildars on the basis of PCS Exam,
1998.
G
It has also been pointed out that out of 18 nominated selectees who had
filed writ petitions in the High Court, only 15 candidates have filed appeals
before us and 12 have been named by the witnesses although First lnfonnation
Reports were initially lodged against them. So far as direct recruits to PCS
(E.B.) are concerned, 18 have filed appeals before us and out ofwho!'17 were
named by the witnesses and the First Infonnation Reports were lodged against H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A them. So far as the candidates selected in the Allied Services are concerned,
out of 63 selected candidates only 24 have filed appeals before us and they
are not named in the First Information Report or as witnesses.

It is not in dispute that as regards PCS (E.B.) and Allied Services, the
names of the selectees have been registered in different registers.
B
So far as the judicial officers are concerned, First Information Report
has been lodged against the ten of them. Seven candidates, out of the said
ten candidates named in the First Information Report, belonged to 200 I Batch.
Nobody is named in the First Information Report or figures in the statements
of the witnesses in respect of the 1998 batch. The 3 candidates who have
C been named in the First Information Report are of 1999 batch and 2000 batch.
The candidates who were selected in 200 I have not been appointed at all. We
have not, thus, taken into consideration their cases.

We at the outset would furthermore notice that having regard the
D submissions made before us by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Rao that the services
of the appellants before us were terminated not in terms of the Rules but in
view of the commission of illegality in the selection proc;!SS involved, we
need not consider the applicability of the relevant provisions of the statutes
as also the effect of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
An appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
E of India would be void. It would be a nullity. [See Secretary, State of Karnataka
and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCALE 247] But before such a finding
can be arrived at the appointing authority must take into consideration the
foundational facts. Only when such foundational facts are established, the
legal principles can be applied.

F If the services of the appointees who had put in few years of service
were terminated; compliance of three principles at the hands of the State was
imperative, viz., to establish (I) Satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the
materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that
the selection process was tainted; (2) determine the question that the illegalities
G committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entire selection
process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of materials were required
to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent
manner; (3) Whether the sufficient material present enabled the State to arrive

H
at satisfaction that the officers in majority have been found to be part of the
fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt. .
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON r. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J. ] 799

Once such findings were arrived at, all appointments traceable to the A
officers concerned could be cancelled. But admittedly, although there had
been serious imputations against Shri Sidhu being at the helm of the affairs
of the Commission, all decisions made by the Commission during his tenure
are yet to be set aside. We do not intend to enter into the said controversy
as we were informed at the bar that the High Court itself is in sesin of the
matter. We may, however, note that Mr. Dwivedi in his usual frankness stated B
that there may not be any answer to that query.

Apart from inferences drawn on certain facts and in particular the
circumstances enumerated by the High Court which have been repeated by
the learned counsel for the State before us, it is difficult to accept that it was C
demonstrated by the State that it was absolutely impossible for it to separate
the innocent people from the tainted ones.

It is also not a case where all the relevant records have been destroyed.
The Vigilance Bureau does not say so. Questions papers, answer sheets and
other documents are available. Reports made by the Bureau were prepared D
upon examination of the materials collected by it. The High Court itself has
noticed that what is not available is the records relating to the procedure
adopted in regard to the appointment of paper setters. It may be true that
such records could be destroyed only after a period of five years but it has
not been pointed out by the State as h> how by reason of the non-availability
thereof, it became difficult for the authorities to arrive at the correct facts. We E
have not been informed that connecting materials were also destroyed. It has
been noticed by the High Court that all relevant information were available
and submitted to the court. It cannot, therefore, be said that a fair investigation
into the whole affair was an impossible task or despite availability of all such
records a thorough investigation had been made so as to arrive at a satisfaction p
that the entire selection process suffered from a large scale fraud. It was also
not been found that all appointments were made on extraneous considerations
including monetary consideration.

If fraud in the selection process was established, the State should not
have offered to hold a re-selection. Seniority of those who were re-selected G
.. ordinarily could not have been restored in their favour. Such an offer was
evidently made as the State was not sure about the involvement of a large
number of employees.

A distinction moreoever exists between a proven case of mass cheating
,. H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006J SUPP. I S.C.R.

A for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of corruption where
the appointment of a civil servant is involved.

In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha and
Ors.. [1970] l SCC 648, the court came to a finding that the high percentage
of marks obtained by the candidates who appeared at the selection of the
B centre in question did give rise to a suspicion that unfair means had been
practised and the Board was justified in investigating the case. While the
High Court held that despite the same, the principles of natural justice was
required to be complied with; this Court noticed the reports of the experts and
came to the conclusion that the results thereof speaks for themselves. It was
C noticed that whereas in other centers the average of successful candidates
was 50%, in the center in question, the percentage of passing in different
papers were unusually high ranging from 70% to !00%. In that view of the
matter, this Court held:

"These figures speak for themselves. However, to satisfy ourselves
D we ordered that some answer books be brought for our inspection and
many such were produced. A comparison of the answer books showed
such a remarkable agreement in the answers that no doubt was left
in our minds that the students had assistance from an outside source.
Therefore the conclusion that unfair means were adopted stands
completely vindicated.
E
This is not a case of any particular individual who is being
charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the
examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If
it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair means
but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was
F held. Must the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to
represent their cases? We think not. It was not necessary for the
Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as
a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one
with unfair means so that he could claim to ddend himself. The
G examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale.
In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board
must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual
case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair
means. The examination as a whole had to go."

H
INDERPREET SINGH KAH LON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 801
Such is not the case here. A
In Anamica Mishra and Ors. v. U.P. Public Service Commission,
Allahabad and Ors., [1990] Supp SCC 692, an error was found out at the stage
of calling candidates for interview. This Court opined that as no defect was
pointed out in regard to the written examination and the sole objection was
confined to the exclusion of a group of successful candidates in interview B
there was no justification for cancelling the written part of the recruitment
examination and the situation could have been appropriately met by setting
aside the recruitment and asking for fresh interview of all eligible candidates
on the basis of the written examination.

Yet again in SP. Biswas and Ors. v. State Bank of India, [1991] Supp C
2 SCC 354, the court refused to interfere with the result of the examination
as it was shown that there had been neither any mass copying nor the final
result was shown to have been influenced by the unfair means by any
candidate.
D
In those cases also tainted cases were separated from the non-tainted
cases. Only, thus, in the event it is found to be an impossible or highly
improbable, en masse orders of termination could have been issued.

Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the
matter shou Id have made all endeavours to segregate the tainted from the E
non-tainted candidates.

We may, at this stage, notice that the following cases would fall in the
'- different categories which are enumerated hereinbelow:

(i) Cases where the 'event' has been investigated: F
(a) Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, [1993] l SCC
154 at paragraphs 3 and 7.

(b) Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1994] 4 SCC 165 at
paragraphs I2, 15 and 22.
G
.... (c) Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey, [1994] 5 SCC 663 at
paragraph 4.
(d) Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India, [1996] 10 SCC 742 at
paragraph 4.
H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A (e) Union of India v. U. Chakradhar, [2002] 3 SCC 146 at paragraph
9.
(f) B. Rumanjini v. State of A.P., [2002] 5 SCC 533 at paragraph 4.

(ii) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed or a
B preliminary investigation was concluded:
(a) 0. Chakradhar (supra)

(b) Krishun Yadav (supra)
(c) Hanumun Prasad (supra)

C (iii) Cases where the selection was made but appointment was not made:

(a) Dilbagh Singh (supra) at paragraph 3

(b) Pritpal Singh v. State of Huryuna, [ 1994] 5 SCC 695
(c) Anand Kumar Pandey, (supra) at paragraph 4.
D (d) Hanuman Prasad (supra)
(e) B. Ramanjini (supra) at paragraph 4.

(iv) Cases where the candidates were also ineligible and the
appointments were found to be contrary to law or rules:
E (a) Krishun Yadav (supra)

(b) Pramod luhudas v. State of Maharashtra, [ 1996] I 0 SCC 749
wherein appointments had been made without following the
selection procedure.

F (c) 0. Chakradhar (supra) wherein appointments had been made
without type-writing tests and other procedures of selection
having not been followed.

It is now well-settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides
and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that
G a ratio of case must be understood having regard to the fact situation obtaining
therein. [See P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By LRs. v. Andhru Bank Ltd and Ors.,
(2004] I I SCC 672, M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kera/a, (2005] 11
SCC 45 and Haryana State Coop. land Development Bunk v. Nee/am, [2005]
5 sec 91.

H In Benny TD. and Ors. v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Anr.,
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 803
[1998] 5 sec 269, this Court repelled a contention raised therein that in view A
of the findings of the Public Inquiry Commission that there has been tampering
of marks in respect of several candidates and as such there has been no fair
and objective selection, public interest demanded annulment of the entire
selection. This Court held that the same could not be done as the same would
tantamount to gross violation of principles of natural justice which cannot be
brushed aside on the ground that public interest demands annulment of the B
selection.

Yet again in Onkar Lal Bajaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., [2003]
2 SCC 673, this Court while dealing with a case of en rnasse cancellation of
the licences granted to the LPG Distributors as a result whereof unequals C
were said to have been clubbed by reason of arbitrary exercise of executive
power, the same was held to be impermissible stating:

"The solution by resorting to cancellation of all was worse than the
problem. Cure was worse than the disease. Equal treatment to unequals
is nothing but inequality. To put both the categories - tainted and the D
rest - on a par is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional being
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ...."

It was further held:

"The aforesaid observations would apply with equal if not more force E
to DSBs if media exposure that the allotments were made either to the
high political functionaries themselves or their near and dear ones is
correct, the authorities would not only be justified in examining such
cases but it would be their duty to do so. Instead of fulfilling that
duty and obligation, the executive cannot unjustly resort "to cancellation
of all the allotments en masse by treating unequals as equals without F
even prima facie examining any cases exposed by the media ..."

Th is Court further observed:

The expression "public interest" or "probity in governance" cannot
be put in a straitjacket. "Public interest" takes into its fold several G
factors. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule to determine what is
public interest. The circumstances in each case would determine
whether government action was taken in public interest or was taken
to uphold probity in governance.

H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A The role model for governance and decision taken thereof should
manifest equity, fair play and justice. The cardinal principle of
governance in a civilized society based on rule of law not only has
to base on transparency but must create an impression that the
decision-making was motivated on the consideration of probity. The
Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and
B nepotism and eschew window-dressing. The act of governance has to
withstand the test of judiciousness and impartiality and avoid arbitrary
or capricious actions. Therefore, the principle of governance has to
be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play and if the
decision is not based on justice, equity and fair play and has taken
c into consideration other matters, though on the face of it, the decision
may look legitimate but as a matter of fact, the reasons are not based
on values but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be
allowed to operate."

Yet again in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajesh P. U., Puthuvalnikathu
D and Anr., [2003) 7 sec 285, this Court observed:

" ... Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the
entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information
that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be
found with reference to others, is nothing but torn! disregard of
E relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving
a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds
the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly
and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority
completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and
unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly
F
unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found
too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at
stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational."

[See also Ashok Lenka v. Rishi Dikshit & Ors., t2006) 4 SCALE 519,
G paragraphs 42-50]

The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to be right in applying the
principle of mass cheating cases in the instant case.

Contention of Mr. Dwivedi, as noticed hereinbefore, centers around
H condemnation of selection and not of the candidate. But, when the services
INDERPREETSINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 805
of the employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have A
aided and abated corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probit~' in
governance or in public interest their services should be terminated; the court
must satisfy itself that conditions therefor exist. The court while setting aside
a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted
that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled. We, however, do not B
agree with the submission of Mr. Dhavan that the decision of the Commission
was collegiate in nature as it is well known that one of the members of the
Commission was biased, other members could also be influenced by him. [See
Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., [1981] I SCC 722]

In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious C
consideration is as to whether due to misdeed of some candidates, honest
and meritorious candidates should also suffer.

It is not in dispute that the State itself appointed a Screening Committee
by an order dated 20th July, 2004 in the following terms:
D
"Whereas during the period 1996-200 I, a total number of about 1681
selections involving 141 categories of employees were made by the
PPSC. And whereas an enquiry has been held by the Vigilance Bureau
in these selections and a report has been submitted by the Vigilance
Bureau to the Government. The State Government has now to take a
view as to the action it may have to take regarding all these selections E
made d•1ring the years 1996-2001. After detailed deliberation and
discussions. in this regard with the concerned Departments, Advocate
General Punjab, Legal Remembrancer and Vigilance Bureau, the
Government has decided to constitute a Committee of Senior Officers
to examine the report of the Vigilance Bureau in the light of the F
records of PPSC and sift the evidence in each case of selection made
during the tenure of Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu as Chairman,
Punjab Public Service Commission and determine whether irregularities
or illegalities were committed in making these selections.

The composition of the above Screening Committee was: G
I. Shri D.S. Guru, IAS, Principal Secretary Department of Health &
Family Welfare, Punjab. - Chairman.
2. Legal Remembrancer, - Punjab Member.
3. Sh. S.M. Sharma, JPS, Inspector General of Police, (Vigilance) H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Punjab - Member
4. Sh. S.S. Rajput, lAS, Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Deptt. Of
Personnel. - Member."

The subject reference before the Committee was:

B .. A total number of 1680 selections involving 141 categories of
employees were examined by the Vigilance Bureau. The Punjab
Government decided to constitute a Screening Committee to examine
the report of the Vigilance Bureau in the light of the records of the
Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and to shift the evidence
C in each case of selection made during the tenure of Shri Ravinder Pal
Singh Sidhu as Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission and
determine whether irregularities or illegalities were committed in making
these selections."

The Screening Committee found the following two selections as vitiated:
D
"(i) Selection to the post of sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil), PWD, B
& R & sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in Panchayati Raj Department;

(ii) Selections of Lecturers Mechanical Engineering for Government
Polytechnics."
E The functions of the Screening Committee in terms of the order of
reference were as under:

"(i) The Committee will examine the Vigilance Bureau Reports and the
records of PPSC regarding selections made to posts in different
p departments on the basis ofrecommendations of Punjab Public Service
Commission during the tenure of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu and
give its findings as to the attendant circumstances of the selections
effected.

(ii) The Committee may examine any other issue specially referred to
G it regarding the selections made during the tenure of Sh. Ravinder Pal
Singh Sidhu.

(iii) Original record from the Departments will be obtained and submitted
to the Committee by the Vigilance Department. The Committee will
hold at least one meeting every week as per its convenience and
H submit its final report within six months."
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 807
We are not unmindful of the controversy that the said Committee did A
not go into the question of illegality in the selection of the Civil Services
Examinations or Judicial Examinations. It might or might not have; but we are
referring to the said report not only to place on record that such a Committee
was constituted inter alia for the purpose of implementing the order of
Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in CWP No. 77/02 but also for the B
purpose that even according to the State sifting of evidence by an independent
body was possible. The Committee, as noticed hereinbefore, was furthermore
required to determine the question as to whether illegalities and irregularities
of such a magnitude had been committed or not. It further appears from the
report that the Screening Committee visited the office of the Commission. It
noticed that the Vigilance Bureau did not go into the issue of role of experts C
and did not produce any concrete evidence before the Committee in regard
to any other illegality committed by the experts. It although noticed the basis
for the Vigilance Bureau to arrive at certain inferences that the selection
process had become tainted, but despite the same went into various facts
including similarity of marks given at the interview despite the amendments
made by the Commission vide a resolution dated 14.3.1995 and other relevant D
factors.

The Committee opined:

"The S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Patiala also stated before the Committee
that after the submission of the report, no other additional evidence E
or piece of information has come to their knowledge. The Committee
is of the considered view that marks in the interview cannot be given
pro rata to the academic qualifications and if this principle is adopted,
it will hit at the very base of adjudging the personality, general
awareness, general knowledge and other traits in the personality of a F
candidate by the Selection Board. Although the high marks awarded
to some candidates in the interview and low marks awarded to some
others are quite striking, vis-a-vis their academic performance, in a
number of cases, especially those placed by the Vigilance Bureau in
the 'tainted' categories, yet the Committee is of the considered view
that in the absence of concrete/conclusive evidence of any extraneous G
considerations like corruption, favouritism, nepotism, etc., the selections
cannot per se be described to be vitiated."

Another factor which merits consideration is as to whether even if the
statements of approvet and other witnesses are taken to be correct, the
selection made in the year 1998 could be said to be so tainted so as to vitiate H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the entire selection process. Jagaman Singh merely stated that only in 1999
Shri Sidhu upon taking him into confidence disclosed that he had some
surplus amount with him. It is stated before us that he has not implicated any
candidate for the year 1998-99 by name. Some of the statements made by him
are said to be with regard to the recovery part and not in regard to the validity
or otherwise of the examination and other selection processes. It was, therefore,
B necessary to establish that the examinations held in 1998 were also tainted.
Some evidence in that behalf should have been brought on record to establish
the necessary tint.

It is not in dispute that in respect of the services where selections were
C made on the basis of the interview, the same was conducted by the Chairman
and two other members. On each subject one expert was also appointed. We
place on record that so far as the Judicial Officers are concerned the expert
was a sitting High Court Judge and, thus, it is not expected that any irregularity
far less illegality would be committed in the matter of allotment of marks at
the interview. In any event, it was necessary to arrive at such a finding.
D
We may notice Rule 17 (a) (iii) of the Rules framed by the Commission
which reads as under:

"(iii) Where more than one member constitute a board for holding the
interview, the senior most Member shall preside assisted by the subject
E Expert(s). Each Member of the Board shall record his evaluation marks
on the award sheets separately after general discussion with the
Expert(s). After the interview each member shall seal his award sheet
in a separate cover and pass it on to the Secretary who shall place
all the award covers in a master cover, seal it withy the seals of the
Members and keep it in his own safe custody."
F
No breach of Rule 17 (a) (iii) as such has been pointed out either before
the High Court or before us. Thus, the possibility of the Chairman and the
Members of the Commission to deliberate on the performance of the candidates
with each other and general discussion with the expert which might have led
G to grant to similar marks cannot be wholly ruled ou:. Suspicion is no
substitution of proof. There may be some cases where such marks had been
given for extraneous considerations, but only because there was such a
possibility, the same by itself without analyzing more may not be a ground
for arriving at the conclusion that the entire selection process was vitiated.
Apart from viva voce, other marks remained the same. The Officers had
H passed other departmental examinations and so far as performance of their
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB [S.B S!NHA,l ] 809
duties is concerned presumably there had been no complaint. A
We may, furthermore, at this stage take note of the fact that so far as
the entries in the registers are concerned the same are governed by Rule 8
of the 1976 Rules, in terms whereof the following registers are required to be
maintained:
B
REGISTER CLASS OF OFFICERS RULE

Register A-1 Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars Rule 8 ( 1) of the Punjab
Civil Service (Executive
Branch) (Class-I) Rules,
1976 c
Register A-2 Temporary members of Class lI Rule 8 (2) of the Punjab
and members of Class III Civil Service
services serving in connection (Executive Branch)
with the affairs of the State of (Class-I) Rules, 1976
Punjab and holding Ministerial D
appointments.
Register A-3 Excise and Taxation Officers, Rule 8 (3) of the Punjab
Block Development and Civil Service
Panchayat Officers and District Executive Branch)
Development and Panchayat ((Class-I) Rules, 1976
Officers
E

Register B Officers accepted as a result Rule 8 (4) of the Punjab
of the Main Competitive Civil Service
Examination. (Executive Branch)
(Class-I) Rules, 1976 F
Register C Officers and Officials serving Rule 8 (5) of the Punjab
in connection with the State of Civil Service
Punjab who are not covered by (Executive Branch)
any of the categories of officers (Class-I) Rules, 1976
or officitlls herein before G
mentioned.
Different registers were, therefore, required to be maintained for different
categories of officers. We have not been apprised that there had been any
violation in that behalf.
H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006J SlPP. I S.C.R.

A Furthermore, a decision in undue haste was taken. So far as the
nominated officers are concerned, whereas a note containing 90 pages was
sent to the Chief Secretary of Punjab on 22.5.2002, the services of all the
officers were tenninated on the next day. Apart from the materials which have
been relied on in the report, no further evidence was probably brought in
between 23.5.2002 and 24.8.2002 when the services of the Executive Officers
B were terminated.

It is, thus, furthermore, beyond anybody's comprehension as to why
action had to be taken in undue haste.

We do not intend to suggest that in any emergency it was not
C pennissible but we have not been shown that any such emergent situation
existed. It was in any event necessary for the State to show as to how the
records moved so as to satisfy the conscience of the court that there had
been proper and due application of mind on the part of the concerned
authorities. An action taken in undue haste may be held to be ma/a fide. [See
D Bahadursinh lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Ors., [2004]
2 sec 65]

We may now deal with the orders of termination of the services of the
Judicial Officers.

E We may at the outset notice that no reason as to why copies of the
vigilance report could not have been made available to the learned advocates
appearing for the judicial officers. At least, they could have been given
inspection thereof.

From the records produced before us it appears that the Advocate
F General, Punjab by a letter dated 23 .5 .2002 handed over 12 envdops which
are as under:

"Envelop No. I - Report on Judicial Officers (pages I to 4)

Envelop No. 2 - Question Papers of PCS (J) examination conducted in
G (a) 1999 (pages I to I0)
(b) 2COO (Pages I to 8)
(c) 200 I (pages I to 7).
Envelop No. 3 - Answer Sheets of Maninder Singh PCS(J)
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA,J.] 811

(a) English (Pages I to 16) A
(b) Punjabi (Pages I to 26)
(c) Civil Law I (Pages I to 37)
(d) Civil Law II (Pages I to 27)
(e) Criminal Law (Pages I to 29)

Envelop No. 4 - Answer Sheets of Amo! Gill PCS (J)
B
(a) English (Pages I to I 0)
(b) Punjabi (Pages I to 9)
(f) Civil Law I (Pages I to 13)
(g) Civil Law II (Pages I to 14) c
(h) Criminal Law (Pages I to I 0)

- Envelop No. 5 - Answer Sheets of Ram Saran PCS (J)
(a) English (Pages I to 22)
(b) Punjabi (Pages I to 27)
D
(c) Civil Law I (Pages I to 35)
(d) Civil Law II (Pages I to 38)
(e) Criminal Law (Pages I to 36)

Envelop No. 6 - Answer Sheets of Preetwinder Singh PCS (J)
(a) English (Pages I to 13) E
(b) Punjabi (Pages I to 16)
(c) Civil Law I (Pages I to 29)
(d) Civil Law II (Pages I to 23)
(e) Criminal Law (Pages I to 25)
F
Envelop No. 7 - Answer Sheets of Mandeep Kaur PCS (J)
(a) English (Pages I to 24)
(b) Punjabi (Pages I to 23)
( c) Civil Law I (Pages I to 26)
(d) Civil Law II (Pages I to 39) G
(e) Criminal Law (Pages I to 34)

Envelop No. 8 - Answer Sheets of Monika Sethi PCS (J)
(a) English (Pages I to 19)
... H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A (b) Punjabi (Pages I to 17)
(c) Civil Law l (Pages I to 30)
(d) Civil Law JI (Pages I to 40)
(e) Criminal Law (Pages I to 33)

Envelop No. 9 - Answer Sheets of Navdeep Singh PCS (J)
B
(a) English (Pages I to 20)
(b) Punjabi (Pages I to 26)
(c) Civil Law I (Pages I to 28)
(d) Civil Law II (Pages I to 32)

c (e) Criminal Law (Pages I to 29)

Envelop No. 10 - Answer Sheets of Rajinder Bansal PCS (J)
(a) English (Pages I to 17)
(b) Punjabi (Pages I to I 7)
(c) Civil Law I (Pages I to 23)
-
D
(d) Civil Law II (Pages I to 26)
(e) Criminal Law (Pages I to 22)

Envelop No. 11 - Answer Sheets of Anil Kumar Jindal PCS (J)

(a) English (Pages I to 11)
E (b) Punjabi (Pages I to 10)
(c) Civil Law I (Pages I to 14)
( d) Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 17)
(e) Criminal Law (Pages I to 15)
p Envelop No. 12 - Answer Sheets ofSapana Singhal (Dental Demonstrator)

Pages 1 to 16."

No question paper or any other document as regards the candidates for
the year 1998 examination, therefore, was handed over by the State to the
G High Court on that date.

The report of the first committee dated 30th May, 2002 is a short one.
The said report is based on the extracts of the statements made by some of
the persons recorded by the investigating agency and the photostat copies

-
of the answer sheets of nine candidates who, amongst others, had bee11
H selected and appointed to the PCS(Judicial) during the period from 1999 to
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.] 813
200 I along with the question papers for the relevant examinations. A
The materials supplied to the Committee, having regard to the fact that
most of the officers named in the First Information Report were of 200 I batch,
cannot be held to be sufficient so as to come to the conclusion that the entire
selection process for 1999 and 2000 was vitiated. Despite the fact that the
selection process for the year 1998 was not the subject matter of the enquiry,. B
recommendations had been made by the Committee for cancellation of
appointment of the candidates of 1998 batch also. The Full Court without any
basis whatsoever recommended dismissal of all the Judicial Officers. Only
when the Additional Secretary of the Government of Punjab vide a letter
dated 27.9.2002 which was received by the High Court on 28.9.2002, drew its C
attention in that behalf, another committee was constituted by the then
Acting Chief Justice on I 0.10.2002 evidently, after the said matter was discussed
......... in the Full Court. Two of the five member Committee were also the members
of the first Committee. The second Committee again considered the statements
of the approver and one other witness recorded under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure as also other documents placed before it and D
came to the opinion: (l) Performance of most of the selected candidates was
below average and the marks awarded to them were disproportionate to the
answers given by them. (The aforementioned opinion was made on the basis
of some of the answer sheets of some of the selected candidates and those
who had not been selected.) (2) The marks originally given to the candidates E
were scored off and unjustifiably increased obviously with a view to ensure
their selection. (3) Another feature which was noticed that the answer sheets
of some of the non-selected candidates were qualitatively better than some
of those who had been selected but they had been awarded lesser marks,
presumably, with a view to push them down.
F
The number of the candidates of 1998 batch was not that high so as
to render examination of each answer book of the candidates difficult. Having
regard to the fact that none of the candidates of 1998 batch had been named
in the First Information Report or by the witnesses, it was, to our mind,
obligatory on the part of the High Court to bestow its attention to the problem
more closely. Maintenance of purity of administration of justice so as to G
,_
uphold the independence of judiciary is indisputably the sole task of the High
Court. However, it is important to maintain purity of administration of justice
both on the judicial side as also the administrative side. Corruption in the

- selection process and in any event illegality going to the root of the matter,
of course, would not be tolerated. But then even applying the strict standard H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A in the case of the judicial officers, whereas applying liberal standard in the
case of others, at least certain basic norms were required to be followed. For
the said purpose, minimal requirements of the principles of natural justice
must be complied with. We regret to note that judicial officers had not been
fairly treated by the High Court. They deserved better treatment. An authority
holding an enquiry of such a nature would ordinarily carry out exercises to
B find out as to whether the selection process was vitiated by fraud or such
illegalities which would vitiate the entire selection process. The Committee
was dealing with charges of aiding and abetting corruption on the part of the
judicial officers nay only some of them and, thus, it was necessary for it to
apply its mind more seriously. The members of the Committee were not
C reevaluating the answer scripts. The candidates were not before them. Their
abilities were not being tested. The learned members of the Committee should
have asked unto themselves the right question, mainly because the issue
before them was different and distinct from an ordinary departmental enquiry.
In any event, there was absolutely no reason why copies of the said reports
could not have been supplied to the appellants.
D
Before us the said reports have been placed. We have allowed the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants to inspect them. Some
brief comments about the said reports had been made. However, we do not
intend to delve deep into the matter, as we are of the opinion that the actions
taken on the basis of the said reports by the High Court were not justified.
E
We also fail to understand as to why two senior Judges who had
headed the Committee should have been made part of the Bench. It was not
a case where the doctrine of necessity was required to be invoked. It may be
that the counsel appearing on behalf of the Judicial Officers did not object
to the learned Judges who were members of the Committee to hear the matter.
F
There is no quarrel with the proposition that the allegation of bias may
be capable of waived. [See Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Ors.,
[ 1976 J 3 SCC 585] However, in this case, bias as regards the subject matter
on the part of the members of the Committee who heard the writ petition is
apparent on the face of the record. Therein this Court was considering a
G question as to whether a bias as regards a special matter would invalidate
proceedings. What was in question therein was the justifiability of the
constitution of selection committee and as the Appellant therein had voluntarily
appeared before it and had taken a chance of having favourabie

H
recommendation from it, he was not permitted to turn around and question
the validity of the constitution of the committee.
-
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB lS.B SINHA. J. l 815
In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr., [1982) A
2 SCC 463, the concession of the counsel recorded by the High Court was
incorrect. But the Appellant was not permitted to go back from the said
concession, stating:

"So the Judges' record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may
claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere B
else."

In Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
etc. etc., [1985) Suppl. SCR 657, this Court held:

" ... The basic ·principle underlying this rule is that justice must not C
only_ be done but must also appear to be done and this .rule has
received wide recognition in several decisions of this Court. It is also
important to note that this rule is not confined to cases where judicial
power stricto sensu is exercised. It is appropriately extended to all
cases where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair D
and just decision between the_ rival claims of parties. Justice is not the
function of the courts alone; it is also the duty of all those who are
expected to decide fairly between contending parties. The strict
standards applied to authorities exercising ju~icial power are being
increasingly applied to administrative bodies, for it is vital to the
maintenance of the rule of law in a Welfare State where the jurisdiction E
of administrative bodies is increasin~ ·at a rapid pace that the
instrumentalities of the State should discharge their functions in a fair
. '
~~ d JUSt manner.....
"

The manner in which the proceedings were conducted in the High Court
leaves much to be desired. F
The writ petitioners, thus, might have waived their right to raise a
contention as regard bias on the part of the Hon 'ble Judges but the same
would not mean that this Court would ignore such a vital fact. lt was clearly
a case where the Hon'ble Judges should have recused themselves from G
hearing the matter. It was for them to remind themselves that justice is not
only done but manife_stly seen to be -done..[See Centre for Public Interest
litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., [2005) 8 SCC 202)

In Re: Pinochet, [1999) I All ER 577 Lord Browne Wilkinson opined:

-· H

-·
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A "The question then arises whether in non-financial litigation, anything
other than a financial or proprietary interest in the outcome is sufficient
automatically to disqualify a man from sitting as judge in the cause....
My Lords, in my judgment, although the cases have all dealt with
automatic disqualification on the grounds of pecuniary interest, there
is no good reason in principles for so limiting automatic disqualification.
B The rationale of the whole rule is that man cannot be judge in his own
cause."

It was further opined:

"One of the cornerstones of our legal system is the impartiality of the
c tribunals by which justice is administered. In civil litigation the guiding
principle is that no _one may be a judge in his own cause: nemo debt
esse judex in_ propria causa the nature of the interest is such that
public confidence in the ·administration of justice requires that the
judge must withdraw from the i:ase or, of he fails to disclose his
D interest and sits in judgment upon it, the decision cannot stand. It is
no answer for the judge to say that he is in fact impartial and that he
will abide by his judicial oath."

It was also state~: /

E . "However, I am of the opinion that there could be cases where the
· interest of the judge in the subject matter of the. proceedings arising
from his strong commitriient to some cause or belief or his association
with a person or body involved in the proceedings could shake public
confidence in the administration of justice as much as shareholding
in a public company involved in litigation."
F
[See also AWG Group Limited v. Morrison and Anr.. [2006] I All ER 967]

Pinochet (supra) applies in all force to the fact of the case.

The aforementioned principles have been accepted and followed by this
G Court in Kumaon Manda! Vikas Nigam ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, [2001] l
sec 182 in the following tenns: --- --
. -· . .,

"Recently however, the English Courts have sounded a different note,
though may not be substantial but the automatic disqualification
theory rule stands to some extent diluted. The affirmation of this
H -~ dilution however is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of

·/-
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINllA,J.] 817
the matter in issue. The House of Lords in the case of R. v. Bow Street A
Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2)
observed:

u .. .In civil litigation the matters in issue \Viii nonnally have an economic
impact; therefore a Judge is automatically disqualified if he stands to
make a financial gain as a consequence of his own decision of the B
case. But if, as in the present case, the matter at issue does not relate .
to money or economic advantage but is concenled with the promotion
of the cause, the rationale disqualifying a Judge appUes.just as much.
ifthe Judge's decision will lead to the promotion of a cause in which
the Judge is involved together with one"of the parties."
c
31. Lord Brown-Wilkinson at p.136 of the report stated:

"It is important not to overstate what is being decided. It was
suggested in argument that a· decision setting aside the order of 25-
11-1998 would lead to a position where Judges would be unable to sit
· on cases involving charities in whose work they are involved. It is D .
suggested that, because of such involvement, a Judge. would be
disqualified. That is not. correct. The facts of this present case are
exceptional. The critical elements are (I) that A.I. was a party to the
· appeal; (2) that A.I. was joined in order to argue for a particular result;
(3) the Judge was a director of a charity closely allied to A.J. and E
sharing, in this respect, A.L's objects. Only in cases where a Judge
is taking an active role as trustee or director of a charity which is
closely allied to and acting with a party to the litigation should a
Judge normally be concerned either to recuse himself or disclose the
position to the parties. However, there may well be other exceptional
cases in which the Judge would be well advised to disclose a possible F.
interest."

32. Lord Hutton also In Pinochet case observed:

"There could be cases where the interest of the Judge in the subject-
matter of the proceedings arising from his strong commitment to some G
a
cause or belief or his assodation with person or body involved in
the proceedings could shake public confidence in the administration
of justice as much as a shareholding (which might be small) in a public
company involved in the litigation." ·

(See also Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002] 4 SCC 388 and Krishan H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Yadav (supra)]

It is not necessary for us, in the facts and circumstances of this case,
to give our final views as regard the current rein in the precedent, i.e., from
likelihood of bias to 'real danger of bias' as was observed in MP. Special
Police Establi.ihment v. State of MP., [2004] 8 SCC 788 but we may only
B observe that ifthe principles of bias which have been highlighted by Mr. Rao
for attacking the conduct of Mr. Sindhu as a Constitutional functionary are
correct, there is no reason as to why the same principles would not apply to
the case of judicial officers. The apprehension in the mind of judicial officers
that inferences had been drawn on the basis of non-existent fact cannot be
C ruled out. It was in the aforementioned premise, the officers should have at
least been given an opportunity to have a look to the reports on the basis
whereof they had been categorized as tainted officers. We fail to understand
if ultimately in the opinion of the High Court, the Judicial Offices were found
to be entitled to look the said report, why the copies thereof were not made
available to them or at least why inspection thereof was not given at an
D appropriate time so as to enable _them to make their submissions. Curiously
enough only when after the oral submissions were over and written
submissions have been filed, although the writ petition belonging to other
categories of services we~e being heard, the arguments advanced on behalf
of the Judicial Officers were directed to be closed and only on the next date
when the counsel had no occasion to make comments upon the reports, the
E same were read out in the Court and allowed to be inspected by the co"r.sel.
It may be that the Superior Judiciary always make endeavours to deal with
the judicial officers in all seriousness it deserves; but then such harsh
punishments may be meted out only when there are sufficient materials on
record so as to enable it to satisfy itself upon adopting a fair procedure. We
F have no hesitation to observe that the Judicial Officers were unfairly treated
by the High Court.

The High Court was probably enthralled by the media reports that two
of the wards of its sitting Judges obtained appointment wrongly. It is, however,
stated at the Bar that they were toppers of the Batch and in the First
G Information Reports, their names had not. been mentioned. Only because
wards of its sitting Judges obtaine(fe~ployment, the same by itself would not
give rise io a presumption that everything was not well in the selection
making process.

-~ We, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAH LON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.]

are of the opinion that it is necessary to direct consideration of the matters A
afresh. We have not been apprised whether in the criminal cases any further
material had been gathered so as to implicate the appellants before us.

We were, however, told that some new appointments have been made,
the effect whereof, would certainly be the subject to the decision of this case.
We, however, do not intend to set aside the said appointments at this stage. B
We also do not intend to disturb the status quo.

We must, however, express our satisfaction that no candidate for the
year 200 l has been appointed. It is one thing to say that having regard to
the nature of selection process, no person is appointed from the select list
as no person has right to be appointed only because his name appears in the C
select list, but, in our opinion, a different standard must be adopted for
terminating the services of the officers who had completed about three years
of service. Some of them, as noticed herein before, passed departmental tests.
Some have been given higher responsibilities. They had completed the period
of probation and some were nearing the completion thereof. They presumably D
had been working to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned.

The impugned judgment as also the orders of the State Government and
the High Court are, thus, liable to be set aside and directions are issued.
Although the impugned judgments cannot be sustained, we are of the opinion
that the interest of justice would be subserved if the matters are remitted to E
the High Court for consideration of the matters afresh. However, with a view
to segregate between the tainted with non-tainted and that in the interest of
justice the High Court should be requested to constitute two independent
scrutiny committees - one relating to the executive officers and the other
relating to the judicial officers.
F
We would, furthermore, -request the High Court to consider the desirability
of delineating the area which would fall for consideration by such Committees
within a time frame. Copies of such reports of the Committees shall be
supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners and/or at least they should
be given inspection thereof. The parties shall be given opportunity to inspect G
any document including the answer sheets etc. if an application, in that behaif
is filed. Such inspection shall, however, be permitted to be made only in
presence of an officer of ihe court. The Appellants shall be given two weeks
time only for submitting their objections to such reports and their comments,
if any, on any material whereupon the High Court places reliance from the date
H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A of supply of copies or inspection is given. Having regard to the fact that the
appellants are out of job for a long time, we would request the High Court
to consider the desirability disposing of the matter as expeditious as possible
and preferably within the period of three months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order. Before parting with the case, however, we may observe
that it is expected that the State having regard to the magnitude of the matter
B shall leave no stone unturned to bring the guilty to book. It is the duty of
the State to unearth the scam and spare no officer howsoever high he may
be. We expect the State to make a thorough investigation into the matter.
These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent and with the directions
and observations made hereinbefore.
c In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. I had the benefit of reading the erudite
judgment of my learned brother Justice Sinha. I concur with the conclusions
D and findings arrived at by him on all the issues except on the issue of
propriety of hearing of the matter by the judges (who were on the Committee),
after the appellants gave clear consent to the hearing of cases by the full
bench even before the commencement of the hearing of cases. I would
therefore, like to write a separate judgment.

E These appeals emanate from a Full Bench judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8421 of 2002 along with other
connected matters.

The founding fathers of the Constitution perhaps, in their wildest dreams,
could not have visualized that the people who are expected to strictly adhere
F to the constitutional values and guide the destiny of the Nation, in times to
come would malign and denigrate the system to such an extent that for his
grave misdeeds, the constitutional authority itself, in the larger public interest
would be required to be put behind the bars. The Chairman of the Punjab
Public Service Commission is an important constitutional authority ..
G This case relates to a period when one Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu (in
short, R.S. Sidhu) was the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission
(hereinafter called the Commission) from September 1996 to 21.3.2002. His
clandestine activities and misdeeds reached the pinnacle of disgrace, ignominy,
dishonour, degradation and humiliation. Perhaps, no one could have polluted
H the entire system in a greater measure. On 25.3.2002 an FIR was registered at
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DAL VEER BHANDARI,J.) 82 J
Police Station, Mohali under section 7 read with section 13(2) of the Prevention A
of Corruption Act, 1988 in relation to the trap organized in which R.S. Sidhu
was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs.

The statement of one of the accused Jagman Singh (who later turned
as an approver) was recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 24.1.2002 and
24.4.2002. Jn three days from 17.4.2002 to 19.4.2002, more than Rs. 16 crores B
were recovered from the lockers and the bank accounts of the relations of R.S.
Sidhu. According to the State, a total cash amount, securities and properties
worth about Rs. 22 crores were recovered. Out of the said amount, a sum of
Rs. 1.28 crores was recovered from the house of Jagman Singh. Jn the history
of this country, there may not have been many cases of the Prevention of C
Corruption Act of this magnitude, where such huge amounts were recovered.
All this amount was collected by R.S. Sidhu in lieu of ensuring recruitment/
appointments to various offices of the PCS (Executive Branch), allied services
and PCS (Judicial Branch) in the State of Punjab from the prospective
candidates.
D
This unfortunate episode teaches us an important lesson that before
appointing the constitutional authorities, there should be a thorough and
meticulous inquiry and scrutiny regarding their antecedents. Integrity and
merit have to be properly considered and evaluated in the appointments to
such high positions. It is an urgent need of the hour that in such appointments
absolute transparency is required to be maintained and demonstrated. The E
impact of the deeds and misdeeds of the constitutional authorities (who are
highly placed) affect a very large number of people for a very long time,
therefore, it is absolutely imperative that only people of high integrity, merit,
rectitude and honesty are appointed to these constitutional positions.

The following vacancies which arose during the tenure of R.S. Sidhu as
F
Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission are under challenge.

On the Administrative side the following vacancies arose:
Class I: Direct Recruits: 28 vacancies
Class II (allied etc): Direct Recruits: 63 vacancies
G
Class I: Nominated: 18 vacancies
Total 109
Similarly, on the Judicial Side the following vacancies arose:
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Class I for 1998 vacancies: 21
C:ass I for 1999 vacancies: 14
Class I for 2000 vacancies: 8
Class I for 2001 vacancies: 21

B Total 64

''By an advertisement issued in February, 1998, the Commission
invited applications for recruitment against 28 vacancies in PCS
(Executive branch) and 63 vacancies in Allied Services. In all, 13094
candidates appeared in the preliminary examination held on 29.3.1998.
C Out of them, 1097 candidates were declared successful. The main
written examination was held between 2. 7.1998 and 2.8.1998 and the
result was declared on 25.1.1999. 273 candidates were called for interview
which were held between 20.4.1999 and 22.6.1999. The final result was
declared on 11.7.1999 and the successful candidates were appointed
to PCS (Executive branch) and Allied Services in September, 1999 and
D
thereafter.

Recruitment to PCS (Executive Branch) by nomination made in
terms of Rules 8 to 11 and 15 of the Punjab Civil Service
(Executive Branch (Class-I) Rules, 1976 (for short, the 1976
E Rules'

For the year 1994:

There were three vacancies for Register A-I which were to be filled
from amongst Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars. There were two vacancies
F for Register A-II which were to be filled from amongst Civil Secretariat
Ministerial Staff. There was one vacancy for Register A-III which was
to be filled from amongst the Excise and Taxation Officers/Block
Development Officers/District Development and Panchayat Officers.
There was one vacancy for Register 'C' which was to be filled from
amongst the officers/officials working in subordinate offices. Interviews
G for selection for the vacancies to be filled from the four registers were
held on 6.4.1999, 28.7.1999 and 29.7.1999, 4.1.1999 and 7.4.1999
respectively.

For the year 1996:

H
!NDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.) 823
There were five vacancies for Register A-1. There was no vacancy A
for Register A-II. There were two vacancies for Register A-Ill and
there were three vacancies for Register 'C'. Interviews for selection
for appointment to Register A-I were held on 26.5.1999. Interviews for
selection for appointment to Register A-III from amongst District
Development and Panchayat Officers were held on 29.5.1999. For
selection from amongst Excise and Taxation Officers, interviews were B
held on 29.6.1999. For Register 'C', interviews were held on 4.6.1999
and 7.6.1999.

PCS (Judicial Branch) made in terms of Punjab Civil Service
(Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the 1951 Rules') C
In all, four selections were made for recruitment to PCS (Judicial
Branch) during the tenure ofR.S. Sidhu as Chairman of the Commission.
The details of the vacancies for which the selections were made are
as under:

Year Number of vacancies
D

1998 21

1999 14

2000 8
E

2001 21

The candidates selected on the recommendations made by the
Commission except those recommended in 2001 were appointed to the F
service after obtaining approval of the High Court on administrative
side."

It may be pertinent to mention that two FIRs were registered. FIR No.
7 was registered at Police Station, Mohali under Section 7 read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 25.3.2002 and the FIR No. G
24 was registered on 30.4.2002 against R.S. Sidhu and Pritpal Singh, the then
Secretary of the Commission in the context of large scale fraud committed in
the selections made by the Commission. On the basis of the material on
record, it is revealed that a number of candidates paid money to R.S. Sidhu
for ensuring selections in the examination and appointment to the PCS
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A (Executive Branch), Allied Services and PCS (Judicial Branch) and in the raids,
as mentioned earlier, a huge amount of money was recovered.

The Vigilance Bureau highlighted the following irregularities committed
by the Commission at the behest of the then Chairman:

B "(I) The screening of answer sheets of competitive examinations
reveals that the favoured and tainted candidates were helped in written
tests in one way or another. For instance some selective candidates
were helped by giving question papers one night before the date of
examinations and if the candidates could not perform well in the
written examination, the examiners were asked to give maximum marks
c to the favoured candidates, irrespective of the matter contained in the
answer sheets and the hand writing being not legible.

(ii) The interview marks were tailored to help the favoured and
tainted candidates. This was the main criterion used by the Chairman
D of the Commission for selection of desired candidates. During the
investigation of the case, this factor has emerged very clearly and
there is a strong evidence in the case file. The favoured candidates
have been given marks in the interview and the candidates coming in
the way of favoured candidates have been given less marks in the
interview to keep them way down in the merit list.
E
(iii) While pursuing the list of candidates who were interviewed
by the Chairman and the Members, the most astonishing feature is
that in more than 95% cases, Chairman and the Members have allotted
similar marks to the candidates after interview which is impossible as
all the Members and the Chairman were supposed to test the capability
F of the candidates in their individual capacities. It could never have
been a consensus gradation.

(iv) In many of the selections there was a one Member Board.

(v) The procedure for calling experts, paper setting and paper
G setters, examiners (Markers etc.) were exclusively in the hands of the
Chairman as reported by the Secretary, Punjab Service Commission
and no such record is available in the Commission, whereas such
record can only be destroyed after a lapse of 5 years as per instructions
of the PPSC.
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.] 825
(vi) The selections, which are not based on the competitive A
examination, are based on pass marks (percentage of basic degree +
interview marks). The procedure is such that the difference in pass
marks can be easily covered by interview marks. For example, if 3
candidates have 50%, 60% and 70% marks in Graduation, their base
marks (40% of the percentage in basic degree) will be 20, 24 and 28
respectively. The marks allotted for interview can easily cover the gap B
of 8 marks between the candidates getting the lowest and highest
base marks.

(vii) In some cases the interview marks are out of range of grade
marks. For example, B+ (26 to 30) grade is given by the expert but the C
Board gave him/her 32 marks. This irregularity may be due to clerical
mistake committed by the PPSC staff and is therefore being verified.

(viii) There is some evidence on the file that expert(s) was/were
asked to be selective."
D
On consideration of the entire material placed before it, the State
Government decided to cancel the entire selection made for recruitment of
PCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services in 1998. Consequently, a general
order dated 24.8.2002 was issued terminating the services of the appellants.

Regarding Judicial Officers appointed to PCS (Judicial Branch), the High E
Court constituted a sub-committee of five Judges to scrutinize the record of
selection. After going through the answer sheets of the candidates, who were
selected on the basis of examinations held for recruitment against the vacancies
in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, the sub-committee submitted a report dated
30.5.2002 with the observation that, interpolations and cuttings were made in
the marks awarded to some of the candidates and their marks were increased F
and that the assessment made by the examiners was far from fair. The report
of the sub-committee was accepted by the Full Bench of the High Court and
a recommendation was made to the government to terminate the services of
tho~e who were appointed on the basis of the selections made during the
tenure of R.S. Sidhu. On a reference made by the State Government, the G
second sub-committee examined the answer sheets of some of those who
were selected as well as the answer sheets of those who were not selected
and observed that a deliberate attempt had been made to give higher marks
to some undeserving candidates and at the same time, lower marks were
awarded to more meritorious candidates. The report submitted by the second
H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A sub-committee was also approved by the Full Court. On the recommendations
made by the High Court, the State Government terminated the services of
those who were appointed on the basis of the selections made by the
Commission against the vacancies of the years 1998, 1999 and 2000.

All the appointments were terminated on the recommendations of the
B High Court on 27.9.2002. Similarly, the appointments of nominated Executive
Class I Officers were terminated by order dated 23.5.2002.

These appellants have filed a number of writ petitions before the Punjab
& Haryana High Court which were dismissed by the impugned judgment of
C the Full Bench being devoid of any merit.
These appellants, being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Full
Bench, have now approached this Court by filing these special leave petitions.
After hearing all concerned, this Court granted special leave petitions and
these appeals have now been placed for final disposal before this Court.
D
Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate and a large number of
counsel have appeared on behalf of the appellants. Submissions made by the
appellants are summarized as under:

(I) The appellants have challenged the impugned order mainly on the
E grounds of violation of articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution and the
breach of the principles of natural justice.

(II) Some of the appellants have submitted that they had completed 3
years probation and according to Rule 23 of the 1976 Rules they were deemed
to have been confirmed in their services and their services could not be
F terminated without holding regular enquiry in accordance with the Punjab
Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the 1970
Rules') read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India and, in any case,
Rule 23 could not have been invoked for dispensing with their services
because their work, conduct and performance had remained satisfactory during
G the period of probation.

(Ill) The appellants have also submitted that both the Vigilance Bureau
and the Chief Secretary had decided the issue of mass dismissal orders in less
than 24 hours without proper application of mind. It was also submitted tliat
the Screening Committee of 2004 showed that an exercise separating tainted
H
INDERPREETSINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DAL VEER BHANDARI,]] 827
from the non-tainted candidates could be done in two or three months. It was A
submitted that the decision of mass dismissal was passed on insufficient
material and without application of mind.

(IV) Some of the appellants have submitted that their academic records
are very good and they were selected to PCS (Executive Branch) and/or Allied
Services and PCS (Judicial Branch) on the basis of their academic records and B
their good performance in the examinations held and they have nothing to do
with the illegalities, irregularities committed by R.S. Sidhu during his tenure
as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission and, therefore, their
appointments should not be disturbed.

(V) Those appointed to PCS (Executive Branch) from Registers A-I, A-
c
ll, A-III and 'C' have averred that they were selected on the basis of their
....... outstanding service record and the taint, if any, attached to the selections
made for appointment by the direct recruitment cannot affect their selections.
The candidates belonging to the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes,
Backward Classes, Ex-servicemen, Freedom Fighters and Handicapped have D
averred that they have nothing to do with the selections made by R.S. Sidhu
by taking bribe from the candidates or on account of "Sifarish" and their
services could not have been terminated on the basis of the reports of the
Vigilance Bureau.

(VI) The appellants have also challenged that there is no definite or E
specific material available with the State Government on the basis of which
it could form a bonajides opinion that selections were tainted and the reports
prepared by the Vigilance Bureau could not be relied upon for terminating
their services because the same were entirely based on the statement of
approvers recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. F

(VII) It has also been submitted that the criminal investigations were in
relation to the Chairman, PPSC without shedding light on nominated candidates.
Even without getting the interview details of nominated candidates the Vigilance
Bureau treated this as a case of mass corruption on 21.5.2002. This action was
clearly arbitrary and wholly untenable. G

(VIII) The appellants submitted that there was no material before the
Committee on the basis of which the drastic order of cancelling the selections
of three batches comprising of 39 judicial officers could be made. It was
further submitted that the examination of material including answer-sheets of
H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A selected/non-selected candidates, statements of approvers under Section 164
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was done only in context of 1998 batch on
its back reference from the State Government.

(IX) The appellants further submitted that the Full Bench of the High
Court lost sight of the fact that there were four separate batches in which four
B separate sitting High Court judges participated as experts whose opinion was
binding under Rule 4 of Part C of the PCS (JB) Rules, 1951. There was no
allegation of any impropriety committed by the experts of the Interview Board.

(X) The appellants also submitted that the fact finding enquiry which
C came to the conclusion that the findings of misconduct on the basis of which
the services of the appellants were terminated was conducted behind the back

-
of the appellants. They were neither associated with the enquiry nor was any
material supplied to them before or after the termination, to enable them from
effectively rebutting the findings. The appellants were only permitted to
examine their own answer-sheets in which no cutting/overwriting/ irregularity
D was found.

(XI) According to the appellants, the High Court erroneously proceeded
on the administrative side to presume that the mere irregularity in 7 papers
of 200 I batch meant irregularity of the entire batch. On the basis of this
presumption another presumption was raised that there were irregularities in
E all the four batches from 1998 to 200 I. In the case of other selections held
by the PPSC under the Chairmanship of R.S. Sidhu, the Government had
undertaken to constitute two separate committees which had gone into the
record of over 3,500 candidates to ascertain the presence of any taint or
otherwise. In the present case, it was not impractical or impossible to have
F conducted this exercise for the serving judicial officers who were only 39 in
number. According to the appellants, the action of cancelling was taken in
extreme haste and without any logical basis.

(XII) The appellants submitted that it was incumbent upon the State
Government to establish from the records that prior to 23.5.2002 it had examined
G all the selections made during the tenure of R.S. Sidhu and it was after such
a detailed consideration that it became apparent that the taint was only in
respect of the selections in the year 1998 which would necessitate the extremely
harsh and punitive decision to terminate en masse selections of all the
candidates on the ground that the entire selection process was vitiated.

H
--
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DAL VEER BHANDARI, l.] 829
(XIII) The appellants submitted that the selections were vitiated because, A
according to the respondents, Mr. Sidhu employed corrupt methods in the
selection process of the candidates. From this criterion or yardstick, all the
3,446 selections made during the tenure of R.S. Sidhu would stand 'tainted'
and the services of all these candidates are also liable to be terminated.

(XIV) The appellants submitted that it was not a case of large scale B
irregularities where it was impossible to separate the tainted candidates from
the non-tainted candidates. The test for determining whether a set of facts
qualifies to be a case of large scale irregularities sustaining a decision to
cancel the entire selection was aptly stated by this Court in the case of Union
of India v. Rajesh P.U., (2003] 7 SCC 285 in the following words : C
"In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or
categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material
that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be
really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety
or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of D
one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly
any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected
candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner,
vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid
and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite E
the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected
candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is
nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried
away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual
considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality
in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the F
situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected
itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling
the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on
the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and
gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision
to be irrational." G

It is the sacred duty of the Court to sift the grain from the chaff. The
expression "public interest" or "probity in governance" cannot be put in a
strait-jacket. "Public interest" takes into its fold several factors. There cannot
be any hard-and-fast rule to determine what is public interest. The H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A circumstances in each case would determine whether the action was taken in
public interest or was taken to uphold probity in governance.

(XV) The appellants submitted that where there are imputations against
a key decision maker or a key decision, every decision made by such decision
maker during his period of office is not necessarily tainted and to be set aside.
B In fact, the correct approach is to investigate the issues thoroughly and to
weed out the tainted decisions from the ones that are not.

(XVI) The impugned order of termination is also stigmatic. The order
ostensibly discharged the appellants during the period of probation but the
C order of discharge in fact was because of serious allegations of corruption
which appeared in the press against the entire batch. If the veil is lifted it will
be seen that the only reason why the appellants's services have been
terminated is the so called misconduct attributed to the entire batch. Under
these circumstances, since the order is stigmatic in nature the same could not
have been passed without conducting an enquiry and giving the appellants
D an opportunity of explaining their position. The order is, therefore, liable to
be quashed.

(XVII) The passing of such an order at this stage of a person's career
has serious consequences in the entire course of the individual's life. Today,
the appellants would have to suffer a big stigma of having been dismissed
E from the service on account of their being a part of so called tainted batch.

(XVIII) The appellants submitted that they have spent three best years
of their lives taking the departmental examinations and serving the State.
Therefore, it is totally arbitrary and illegal on the part of the State Government
F to throw the appellants out of job at this stage unceremoniously. The order
is totally arbitrary and liable to be quashed on this ground.

(XIX) The order of termination is in clear violation of Rule 17 of the PCS
(EB) (Class I) Rules 1976 which stipulates thus "the Govt. may at any time,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the name of any person from
G any register of accepted candidates; provided that before taking such action
the person concerned will be given an opportunity against the action so
proposed".

(XX) The entire case of the respondent State is based on the report of
investigation made by the Vigilance Department, which is primarily based
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB [DALVEER BHANDARI,).] 83 J
;
upon the statement of the tout turned approver and the matter is still sub- A
judice before the learned Trial Court, hence there is no veracity of these
statements or reports in law and can never be the basis of termination of
services. The report and the challan have been presented by the Vigilance
Department in the months of July and August 2002 whereas, the impugned
order of termination was passed on 23.5.02.
B
(XXI) That the allegation of pushing up the unmeritorious candidates
with a purpose to facilitate their selections by awarding them more marks in
the interview is not substantiated by the fact that a large number of candidates
who are not named in the FIR have also got very high/low marks. The
suggestion of the State Government would in fact amount to a proposition,
that marks in the interview are linked with the academic record of the candidate
c
and any discrepancy in the same would give rise to suspicion of taint. If this
... was so then the entire objective of conducting an interview is lost. An
interview is included in the selection process so as to evaluate the personality,
leadership quality and ability to be a good administrator by the Selection
Board. It is not uncommon where academically sound candidates may prove D
to be bad administrators due to lack of the above mentioned qualities. Thus,
in case the argument of the State is to be accepted, possibly no selection can
hold good and taint can be read into practically any selection process.

,
- (XXJI) Reliance has also been placed on the case of Union of India v.
Rajesh P. U., Puthuvalnikathu, (2003] 7 SCC 285. In this case, applications
E
were invited for filling up 134 posts of Constables by the Central Bureau of
Investigation. The selection process consisted of a written examination and
an interview followed by a physical fitness test. However, the selected
candidates including the respondent were informed that the selection list had
been cancelled by the Special Committee constituted to enquire into the F
allegations of favouritism and nepotism on the part of the officers in conducting
the Physical Efficiency Test and irregularities committed during the written
exam. The respondent approached. the High Court after his application was
dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Division Bench after
perusal of the Committee's report and review of the entire process categorically
rejected allegations of nepotism/favourtism and came to the conclusion that G
there was no justification to cancel the entire selection when the impact of
irregularities which crept into evaluation on merits could be identified
specifically and was found, on a reconsideration of the entire records, to have
resulted in about 31 specific number of candidates being selected undeservedly
>
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A to the detriment of similar such number of candidates. Repelling the plea that
a person in the select list h«s no vested right to get appointed and finding
the cancellation of the entire selection arbitrary and unreasonable, the High
Court allowed the writ petition.

(XXIll) An appeal was preferred to this Court. This Court observed that
B applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of
the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such
selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is
nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by
irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing
C to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was
strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. In short, the competent
authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and
unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, which was wholly
unwarranted and unnecessary. This Court also observed that the High Court
-
had adopted a practical, pragmatic, rational and realistic solution to the
D problem and the appeal filed by the Union of India was consequently dismissed.

(XXIV) The appellants have also submitted that nominated candidates
were entitled to protection under Article 311. The appellants have also placed
reliance on a large number of judgments of this Court which indicated that
E probationers who have crossed the maximum period of probation were deemed
to be confirmed.

(XXV) The appellants have also submitted that there is a clear difference
between the proven case of mass cheating for an examination and an unproven
imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of the civil servant is
F involved.

In Anamika Mishra v. U.P.P.S.C., (1990] Supp. SCC 692, this Court
observed that when no defect was pointed out in regard to the written
examination and the sole objection was confined to exclusion of a group of
successful candidates in the written examination from the interview, there was
G no justification for cancelling the written part of the recruitment examination.
On the other hand, the situation could have been appropriately met by setting
aside the recruitment and asking for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates
on the basis of the written examination and select those who on the basis of
the written and the freshly-held interview became eligible for selection.

H
INDERPREET SINGH KAH LON v. STATEOF PUNJAB [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.] 833
In S.P. Biswas v. State Bank of India, [ 1991] Supp 2 SCC 354, there were A
allegations of unfair means adopted in the examination. The Bank got the
enquiry conducted and steps were taken to exclude the possibility of results
being affected by unfair means. This Court approved the decision of the High
Court and observed that the relevant records disclosed that an honest attempt
was made on the part of the management of the Bank to examine all the points B
raised in the report and otherwise, and in cases where an element of use of
unfair means was found, a necessary action was taken.

(XXVJ) The appellants also submitted that, in the instant case, the
decisions were collegiate decisions by a number of people and those decisions
could not be set aside because of the allegations against the Chairman of the C
Commission. It was submitted that this is not a mass cheating case but a mass
dismissal case based on mere allegations. It was submitted that for cause on
imputations of corruption even though the order of 23 .5 .2002 is "finally a
dismissal simpliciter''. The various cases of dismissals are based on proper
investigation or proven illegality, not mass dismissals based merely on D
conjectures. It was also submitted that the officers of 1999 were targeted
where others of the period 1996-2002 were given a total go-by.

Reliance has been placed on Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003]
2 SCC 673. This Court, in the said case, on the basis of news item appeared
in the Indian Express, making allegation of political patronage in allotment of E
retail outlets of petroleum products, LPG distributorships and SKO-LDO
dealerships examined the entire case. As a result of media exposure the
Government in public interest decided to cancel all the allotments. This Court
examined the matter in great detail and observed as to how could all the large
number of candidates against whom there was not even insinuation be clubbed F
with the handful of those who were said to have been allotted these
dealerships/distributorships on account of political connections and patronage?
The Court stated that the two were clearly unequals. Rotten apples cannot
be equated with good apples. Under these circumstances, the plea of probity
in governance or fair play in action motivating the impugned action cannot
be accepted. The impugned order from any angle cannot stand the scrutiny G
of law. This Court observed that the solution by resorting to cancellation of
all was worse than the problem. Cure was worse than the disease. Equal
treatment to unequals is nothing but inequality. To put both the categories,
tainted and the rest, on par is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court also observed H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A that the Government instead of fulfilling the duty and obligation, cannot
unjustly resort to cancellation of all the allotments en masse by treating
unequals as equals without even primafacie examining any case exposed by
the media. If a hue and cry is made that certain allotments have been made
to the sitting members of Parliament or their wives or members of legislature
B or their relations, the public, media and the Opposition would be justified in
raising eyebrows. Faced with this situation, the Court appointed a Committee
of a retired Judge of this Court along with a retired Judge of Delhi High Court
to examine all 413 cases. This Court observed that if a Committee, on preliminary
examination of facts and records, formed an opinion that the allotment was
made on merit and not as a result of political connections or patronage or
C other extraneous considerations, it would be open to the Committee not to
proceed with the probe in detail. If such large scale matters from all over the
country were directed to be reexamined why cannot a small number of cases
of one State be scrutinized?

D Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab
submitted that the government can set aside the selections if there is some
material which is sufficient to come to a conclusion that corruption and
-
manipulation have pervasively influenced the selection process. He also
submitted that the Courts do not sit in appeal and would give wide latitude
to the Government with regard to adju.dging the fairness of selections. The
E Courts would be slow at interfering with such decisions of the government.
He submitted that probity of public services can only be maintained through
fair selection where merit is judged on the basis of capability, whether in the
written examination or in the interview. It is the constitutional duty of the
Commission and the State Government to ensure that the selections are fair
F and free of corruption and manipulations.

He also submitted that while taking the decision to cancel a selection
no stigma is attached to the candidates who are affected as there was no
individual charge against them. It is the selection process which is condemned.
He submitted that the Government is not required to establish beyond
G reasonable doubt that there was corruption and manipulation. It is entitled to
judge on the basis of probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct and
the real possibility of the selections being entirely effected by the likelihood
of bias of the Chairman of the Commission who was completely managing the
examinations. According to him, it was not possible to separate the tainted
H candidates from the non-tainted candidates. He submitted that the selection
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATEOF PUNJAB [DALVEER BHANDARI,J.] 835
process is found to be vitiated pervasively that all the appointments made on A
the basis of such selection would be null and void as an issue. He submitted
that, therefore, the State Government was justified in terminating the services
of the appellants.

Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court
submitted that the selection of judicial officers is believed to be contaminated B
at source, having regard to the nature of judicial posts, the High Court had
to take appropriate remedial measures to restore the credibility of recruitment
and to safeguard the independence of judiciary. The High Court acted after
being satisfied prima facie on the basis of the reports of the Committees of
Judges that all the four selections were vitiated. In the circumstances, the C
cancellation of selections/appointments and directing a fresh selection was
just, fair and reasonable. He submitted that this is a case of condemnation
of all four selections made but not of the candidates selected. In such a case,
the rule of audi alteram partem will not be attracted. He submitted that
appointments made on the basis of condemned selections are void ab initio.
He submitted that, therefore, the appointees cannot be regarded as lawful D
holders of the offices.

He also submitted that it is well settled that justice should not only be
done but also seen to be done. The same principle applies to the judicial
appointments as well, as the Judiciary survives on its credibility. Selection of E
judicial officers should not only be fair but also be seen to be transparent,
free from any taint or suspicion to retain public confidence. He further submitted
that it is not open to allege bias on the part of the two Judges who were on
the Committee, having consented to their hearing the matter. No such plea
was raised before the High Court in the writ petitions. In any event, without
imp leading the Judges concerned by name, the plea of bias cannot be urged. F
He placed reliance on the cases of Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow,
[1976] 3 SCC 585, AShok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1985] Supp. I
SCR 657 and State of Maharashtra v. R.S Nayak, [1982] 2 SCC 463.

The principal question which needs to be adjudicated is whether, in the
facts and circumstances of these cases, the respondents were justified in G
cancelling the entire selection both of executive and judicial officers?

Undoubtedly, in the selection process, there have been manipulations
and irregularities at the behest of R.S. Sidhu, the then Chairman, Punjab Public
Service Commission. On careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A case, in my considered opinion, the High Court ought to have made a serious
endeavour to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates. Though
the task was certainly difficult, but by no stretch of imagination, it was not
an impossible task.

The peculiar facts of this case which need to be highlighted are that
B some of the candidates have worked for about three years and their services
were terminated only on the basis of criminal investigation which was at the
initial stage. The termination of their services as a consequence of cancellation
of selection would not only prejudice their interests seriously, but would ruin
their entire future career.
c It may be pertinent to mention that during the said period there has
been no allegation regarding the integrity or efficiency of these officers.

The facts of this case reveal that the material supplied to the Committee
having regard to the facts that majority of the officers named in the FIR
D belonged to 2001 batch, the respondents not only cancelled the entire selection
of 2001 batch, but on the basis of the cancellation of selections of 200 I batch
the entire process of 1999 and 2002 selections was also cancelled. lt is also
relevant to mention that the selection process for the year 1998 was not the
subject matter nor any recommendation had been made by the Committee,
even then the selections of this year were also vitiated. The High Court
E Committee without there being sufficient and adequate material on record
recommended cancellation of selections of both the executive and judicial
officers and the Full Bench erred in accepting the recommendation and
tem1inating the services of all the officers.

F A close scrutiny of the facts of this case clearly reveals that the judicial
officers did not get a fair treatment by the High Court. They were not given
copies of the Report and other material on which reliance was placed and they
virtually had no chance of making effective representation before the
Committee or any other forum where they could ventilate their grievances and
present their point of view.
G
When the basis of termination is serious allegations of corruption, then
it is imperative that the principles of natural justice must be fully complied
with.
•
The High Court has not considered the case in the proper perspective.
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.] 83 7

The consequences of en masse cancellation would carry a big stigma A
particularly on cancellation of the selections which took place because of
serious charges of corruption. The question arises whether for the misdeeds
of some candidates, honest and good candidates should also suffer on en
masse cancellation leading to termination of their services? Should those
honest candidates be compelled to suffer without there being any fault on
their part just because the respondents find it difficult to segregate the cases B
of tainted candidates from the other candidates? The task may be difficult for
the respondents, but in my considered view, in the interest of all concerned
and particularly in the interest of honest candidates, the State must undertake
this task. The unscrupulous candidates should not be allowed to damage the
entire system in such a manner where innocent people .also suffer great C
ignominy and stigma.

This Court had an occasion to examine a similar controversy in the case
of Onkar Lal Bajaj 's case (supra). In that case, there were serious allegations
of political patronage in allotment of retail outlets of petroleum products, (LPG
distributorships and SKO-LDO dealerships). This Court laid down that how D
could a large number of candidates against whom there was not even
insinuation be clubbed with handful of those who were said to have been
allotted dealerships/distributorships on account of political connection and
patronage? This Court clearly stated that the two were clearly unequals. Equal
treatment to unequals is nothing but inequality. This is the most important E
principle which has been laid down in this case by this Court. The Court
further observed that to put both the categories, tainted and the rest, on par
is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. In somewhat similar circumstances, in this case, the
Government, instead of discharging its obligation, unjustly resorted to the
cancellation of all the allotments en masse by treating unequals as equals F
without even primafacie examining their cases. Those officers whose services
were affected because of en masse cancellation have not been given an
opportunity to represent before the concerned authorities. In the case of
Onkar Lal Bajaj there were 4 I 3 cases and the task was indeed difficult to
segregate the cases of political connection and patronage with other cases. G
But, even then, this Court while, setting aside the order of the Government
cancelling the allotment, appointed a Committee of two retired Judges, one of
this Court and another from the Delhi High Court, and they were requested
to examine all 413 cases and decide the matter after getting the report from
that Committee appointed by the Court.
H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A While following the ratio in the said case, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the respondents
cancelling the en masse selections and direct the respondents to examine
each case separately on its merits and submit a report to this Court.

In somewhat similar circumstances, in which initially it looked that it
B was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities,
or iHegalitics, if any, from the others, even then in the case of Union of India
v. Rajesh P. U. (supra), this Court observed that the competent authority
completely mis-directed itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable
decision of cancelling the entire selections.
c The appellants submitted that the judicial officers have not been fairly
treated by the High Court. It was urged that the two senior judges who were
members of the Committee (appointed by the High Court) should not have
been part of the Full Bench constituted by the Chief Justice. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, I do not find any merit in this submission of the
D appellants. In these cases, before hearing commenced, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants clearly consented to hearing of the matter by the
judges of the full bench. After giving clear consent before the High Court,
they cannot be permitted to make any grievance before this Court. This
tendency should not be encouraged.

E The report submitted by the judges of the Committee was placed before
the Full Court and after thorough examination and discussion on the report
by the full court, the same was approved by all the judges of the High Court
unanimously. All the judges after threadbare deliberations on the report had
put their seal of approval. The report, in fact became the report of the High
F Court. On the same analogy no judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
should have heard this matter.

The respondents have placed reliance on famous case Pinochet [I 999]
I All ER 577 which has been referred and relied by the Supreme Court in Rupa
Hurra (2002] 4 SCC 388 at prs.21 read with prs.37-9 and Kumaon Vikas
G Manda/ (200 I) I sec 182 at prs.30-2. There is no quarrel with the principles
which have been laid down in Pinochet's case. But in the facts and
circumstances of this case after giving clear consent before the commencement
of the hearing in the High Court, it is not fair and appropriate for the
appellants to take this objection before this Court for the first time after the
H Division Bench's judgment.
!NDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DALVEER BHANDARl,J.] 839
Jn the facts of this case doctrine of waiver is attracted. A
In 16 Halsbury's Laws (4th edn) para 1471, the term 'Waiver' has been
described in the following words:

"Waiver is the abandonment of a right in such a way that the
other party is entitled to plead the abandonment by way of confession B
and avoidance if the right is thereafter asserted, and is either express
or implied from conduct. It may sometimes resemble a form of election,
and sometimes be based on ordinary principles of estoppel, although,
unlike estoppel, waiver must always be an intentional act with
knowledge. A person who is entitled to rely on a stipulation, existing C
for his benefit alone, in a contract or of a statutory provision may
waive it, and allow the contract or transaction to proceed as though
the stipulation or provision did not exist. Waiver of this kind depends
upon consent, and the fact that the other party has acted upon it is
sufficient consideration. Where the waiver is not express it may be
implied from conduct which is inconsistent with the continuance of D
the right, without need for writing or for consideration moving from,
or detriment to, the party who benefits by the waiver; but mere acts
of induigence will not amount to waiver; nor can a party benefit from
the waiver unless he has altered his position in reliance on it. The
waiver may be terminated by reasonable but not necessarily formal E
notice unless the party who benefits by the waiver cannot resume his
position, or termination would cause injustice to him.

It seems that, in general, where one party has, by his words or
conduct, made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended
to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on F
accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and
acted on it, so as to alter his position, the party who gave the promise
or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous
legal relationship as if no such promise or assurance had been made
by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to the
qualification which he has himself so introduced, even though it is G
not supported in point of law by any consideration."

In 45 Halsbury's Laws (4th edn) para 1269, the meaning of the word
'waiver' has been described as follows:

H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006~..f>OPIF I S.C.R.

A
•
"Waiver is the abandonment of a right, and thus is a defence
against its subsequent enforcement. Waiver may be express or, where
there is knowledge of the right, may be implied from conduct which
is inconsistent with the continuance of the right. A mere statement of
an intention not to insist on a right does not suffice in the absence
of consideration; but a deliberate election not to insist on full rights,
B although made without first obtaining full disclosure of material facts,
and to come to a settlement on that basis will be binding."

The two judges, who were part of the full bench, did not have bias of
any kind against the appellants. They had no pecuniary or any other interest
C in the matter. They have discharged their judicial functions as judges. Therefore,
I find no merit in the submission that the two judges, who were part of the
Committee, ought not to have heard this matter.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion,
the appellants are not justified in making any grievance before this Court
D regarding the hearing of the cases by the full bench of which two judges who
had submitted the Report. were also members. Admittedly, those judges
constituting the full Bench had no interest of any kind in dt:ciding the matter
one way or the other. The appellants before the commencement of hearing
categorically submitted that they had no objection whatsoever to the hearing
of the matter by the said full bench. Even assuming, those judges had any
E bias against the appellants, the appellants had waived their right, if any. In
these circumstances, the doctrine of ·waiver' is fully applicable.

The doctrine of "Waiver" has been explained in Kummins Ballrooms
Co. Ltd v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd., (1970] 2 ALL ER 871. The Court
F observed as under:

"Waiver is the abandonment of a right in such a way that the other
party is entitled to plead the abandonment by way of confession and
avoidance if the right is thereafter asserted, and is either express or
implied from conduct. It may sometimes resemble a form of election,
G and sometimes be based on ordinary principles of estoppd."

The English Court in Earl of Darnley v. London, Chatham and Dover
Rly Co., ( 1867) LR 2 HL 43 at 57, per Lord Chelmsford LC observed that
Waiver must always be an intentional act with knowledge.

H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 84 J

In Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd., (1947) A
KB 130, the Court observed as under:

"It seems that, in general, where one party has, by his words or
conduct, made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended
to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on
accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and B
acted on it, so as to alter his position, the party who gave the promise
or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous
legal relationship as if no such promise or assurance had been made
by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to the
qualification which he has himself so introduced, even though it is C
not supported in point of law by any consideration."

The doctrine of 'waiver' has been interpreted by American cases in the
same manner.

In Scherer v. Wahlstrom [Tax Civ. App., 318 S.W.2d 456, 459], the waiver D
is relinquishment or surrender of a right. The Court observed as under:

"A "waiver" is a giving up, relinquishment or surrender of some
known right and takes place where a person dispenses with the
performance of something which he has a right to exact."
E
In Smith v. McKnight (Tax Civ. App., 240 S.W. 2d 368, 371, 372], the
court observed as under:

"A "waiver" is a giving up, relinquishment or surrender of some
known right, and takes place where a person dispenses with the
performance of something which he has a right to exact." F
The same principles have been adopted in Covington Virginian v.
Woods (29 S.E.2d, 406, 410, 182 Va. 538] and Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v.
Le Fevre, Tex (10 S.W.2d 267, 269].

The doctrine of 'waiver' has been given the same meaning by our G
Courts also. In the instant case, assuming the appellants had any right, that
right was clearly relinquished and given up by them, when they gave no
objection to the hearing of the case by the two judges who were part of the
full bench. Now, after the case was heard and the judgment has gone against
them, it is hardly fair, proper and appropriate for them to raise this as a ground H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A before this Court.
Another significant aspect of this matter is that the two judges (who
were part of the Committee) were not impleaded as parties in the writ petitions
before the High Court and they have not been impleaded as parties in these
appeals before this Court. In case, the appellants were so keen to level
B allegations against those two judges, the appellants ought to have impleaded
them as parties at least before this Court (with the permission of this Court).
This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice.

The ratio of Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer, [1978] 3 SCC
C 36, is that before taking any action against a contractor or anyone, a notice
has to be given. Applying the principles of the said case, in this case, the
conclusion would be that the appellants ought to have impleaded the said
two judges as parties to the petition before levelling allegation of bias against
them.

D In Mis Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal,
[1975] I SCC 70, this Court laid down that fundamentals of fair play require
that the person concerned should be given a notice. The appellants in the
instant case are not justified in levelling allegations against the said two
judges without impleading them as parties to the appeal before this Court.

E I respectfully agree with all the findings of my learned brother Justice
Sinha expect on this issue. On consideration of the cumulative facts and
circumstances I entirely endorse the directions given by my learned brother
Justice Sinha. Consequently, the learned Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana
High Court is requested to set up two independent committees, one, with
F regard to the executive officers and another with regard to the judicial officers.
They should delineate the area which falls for consideration by the said
Committees and the Committees be requested to reconsider all the cases and
submit a Report to the Punjab and Haryana High Court as expeditiously as
possible.

G In consonance with the principles of natural justice the respondents are
directed to supply the copies of the report and other material on which
reliance has been placed within two weeks. The appellants would also be
permitted to inspect the entire record and obtain copies of the documents in
accordance with the rules. The Court would also provide the appellants two
weeks time to submit their objections to such report and comment, if any, on
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATEOF PUNJAB (DALVEER BHANDARI,!.] 843
the material provided by the Court. Since the appellants are out of job, the A
High Court is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible
preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order. Status quo as of today shall be maintained until the disposal of the
matter by the High Court.

These appeals are accordingly disposed of. In the facts and B
circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

v.s.s. Appeals disposed o(

•