Holding

Suspension of the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission under Article 317(2) is valid and does not require a prior show‑cause notice or hearing.

Summary

The petitioners, members of the Haryana Public Service Commission, challenged their suspension by the Governor of Haryana under Article 317(2) of the Constitution, arguing that they were denied a show‑cause notice and a hearing, thus violating natural justice. The Court examined the constitutional scheme governing removal and suspension of commission members, noting that Article 317 provides a special procedure distinct from ordinary service law. It held that the principles of audi alteram partem do not apply with the same rigor to suspension proceedings under Article 317, as the Constitution intends to protect the tenure of commission members while allowing the Governor to act to preserve public confidence before the Supreme Court decides the reference. Consequently, the suspension order dated 09‑08‑2008 was deemed valid and not subject to quash. The writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the suspension of members and the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission under Article 317(2) without a show‑cause notice or hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the procedural safeguards applicable to ordinary government servants extend to members of a Public Service Commission.
Whether the reference made by the President under Article 317(1) can be quashed on the ground of procedural irregularity.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 145, s. Article 315, s. Article 317, s. Article 32

Subjects

Natural justiceSuspensionPublic Service CommissionArticle 317Constitutional lawService lawAudi alteram partemTenure security

Judgment

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 601

"
. RAM KUMAR KASHYAP AND ANR. A
V.
UNION OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 431 of 2008)
AUGUST 7, 2009
B
(K.G. SALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM ANO J.M.
,, PANCHAL, JJ.l
,..,-"'
> Constitution of India, 1950: Article 317 - Reference
under~ Suspension of members and Chairman of Public c
Setvice Commission - Neither Show Cause Notice issued nor
opportunity of hearing afforded - Whether there was violation
of nature/ justice - HiiJld: Principle of service law ordinarily
applicable in case of dismissal of government employees
cannot be extended to proceedings for suspension of D
> '!
member/chairman of Public Service Commission - No
hearing or opportunity of showing cause was necessary before
making reference - Thus there was no violation of natural
justice.
E
The writ petitions are filed in this Court challenging
the reference made by the President of India under Article
} y
317(1), whereby 8 members and the Chairman of Public
Service Commission were placed under suspension by
the Governor of Haryana. The grievance of petitioners is
that they were neither given show cause notice nor an F
opportunity of hearing before the order of suspension
and thereby the principle of natural justice was violated.

Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. Article 317 of the Constitution of India
makes it amply clear as to how the members of the Public
Service Commission are liable to be removed from office.
The foundin-g fathers of Indian Constitution incorporated
601 H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A this procedure in order to give the Chairman and
Members security of tenure to safeguard them against
. ,,
motivated or wrong charges of misbehaviour. The
obvious intent behind the same is to protect them from
undue political pressures or personal favoritism and
B vendetta thereby enabling the Public Service
Commissions to discharge their constitutional
obligations in full measure. [Para 3) [606-F-H]

State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Bina Pani Dei and others
C AIR 1967 SC 1269; Sayeedur Rehman v. The State of Bihar
& others (1973) 3 SCC 333j S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan &
others (1980) 4 SCC 379; Olga Tellis & Others v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation & others (1985) 3 SCC 545, referred
to.

D 1.2. It is not necessary that principles of · audi alterem
partem' rigorously followed in the domain of service law v I

need to be applied with the same degree of rigour in
proceedings involving the removal and suspension of the
members of the State Public Service Commission. This
E exceptional treatment is mandated by Article 317.
Furthermore, the issuance of suspension orders is as per
the 'procedure established by law' and not in derogation
from the same. [Para 5) [607-C-E]

F Special Reference No. 1 of 1983 (1990) 4 SCC 262 -
held inapplicable.

Reference No. 1 of 2003 (2005) 6 SCC 789; Sayalee
Sanjeev Joshi, In Re (2007) 11 SCC 547T, referred to.

G
2. The petitioners were not entitled to an opportunity
to show cause or to be heard before the point of time that
the orders of suspension were passed by the Governor
of Haryana under Article 317(2) after the President had
referred the matter to the Supreme Court. The rationale
H behind empowering the Governor of a State to issue such
RAM KUMAR KASHYAP AND ANR. 11. UNION OF 603
INDIA
an order for suspension even before the reference is A
'1 -< actually decided by the Supreme Court is to maintain the
public trust and confidence in the impartial and honest
working of the said Public Service Commission. It is a
prerogative given to the State Executive, but the
members so suspended are given the opp_ortunity to B
present their cases when the actual .reference is decided
upon by the Supreme Court. It is open to the members
so suspended to present their point of view at that stage.
After all, it is only after the merits of the case are examined
...... .~
that the Supreme Court arrives at an answer to the c
reference and communicates the decision to the
President for further action. The Public Service
Commission is an institution of the utmost importance
created by the Constitution of India under Article 315. For
the efficient functioning of a democracy it is imperative
D
that the Public Service Commissions are manned by
~ )' people of the highest skill and irrepmachable integrity, so
that the selections to various· public .posts can be
immunized from all sorts of extraneous iactors like
political pressure or personal favoritism and are made
solely on considerations of merit. [Paras 10 and 11] [608- E
G-H; 609-A-D]
,._ 3. It is very clear that since the Public Service
y
Commissions are a constitutional creation, the principles
of service law that are ordinarily applicable in instances F
of dismissals of government employees cannot be
extended to the proceedings for the removal and
suspension of the members of the said Commissions.
Hence, the en bloc suspension of the 8 Members and
Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission by G
the Governor of Haryana by an order dated 09.08.2008
~
under Article 317(2) of the Constitution and the impugned
notification dated 09.08.2008 are valid and not liable to be
quashed. [Para 14] [610-E-G]

Special Reference No. 1 of 1997 (2000) 4 sec 309, H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A relied on.
; (

Case Law Reference:
AIR 1967 SC 1269 referred to Para 4

B (1973) 3 sec 333 referred to Para 4
(1980) 4 sec 379 referred to Para 4
(1985) 3 sec 545 referred to Para 4
(1990) 4 sec 262 held inapplicable Para 6 ..
c "'·
(2005) 6 sec 789 referred to Para 8
(2001) 11 sec 547 referred to Para 9
(2000) 4 sec 309 relied on Para 12
D CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
431 of 2008.
' •
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

WITH
E
W.P. (C) Nos. 511 and 512 of 2008.

Shanthi Bhushan, Harish N. Salve, Raju Ramachandran,
Hawa Singh Hooda, Adv. Genl. Manjit Singh, AAG, R.
Chandrachud, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Adity Kr. Chaudhary,
--
'

F
Harikesh Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Sudhir Nandarajog, for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. The Chairman and 8
members of the Haryana Public Service Commission were
placed under suspension on 09.08.2008 by Governor of the
...
State of Haryana. A Reference was made under Article 317(1)
of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble President of India. In
these Writ Petitions the petitioners have sought for a writ of
H
RAM KUMAR KASHYAP AND ANR. v. UNION OF 605
INDIA [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
certiorari for quashing the Reference made on 31.07.2008 by A
the Hon'ble President of India under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution of India and also for a direction that the order of
. suspension dated 09.06,2008 passed by the Governor of State
of Haryan" g~ c.l@Ol!'!red as illegal and be quashed. When the
rnatt~f i;i:irn@ up for consideration, learned Senior Counsel B
~~P§9fing fer the petitioners submitted that the first prayer for
the writ of certiorari to quash the order of Reference under
;.. Article 317 (1) of the Constitution of India is not pressed.
Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration in
these Writ Petitions is whether the suspension of 8 Members c
and the Chairman of Public Service Commission by the
Governor of Haryana by order dated 09.08.2008 is liable to be.
set aside or not.
2. We heard the learn~d Senior Counsel for the petitioners
> " and also counsel for the respondents. The main grievance of D
the petitioners is that they were neither given show cause notice
nor an opportunity to be heard before the order of suspension
was issued and thereby the principle of natural justice has been
violated. BE:lfore examining their submissions, it is necessary
to consider the language of the constitutional provisions which E
qeal with the removal and suspension of the members of Public
> ' Service Commissions. Article 317 of the Constitution reads as·
follows:
"317. Removal and suspension of a member of a Public F
Service Commission(1) Subject to the provisions of
clause (3), the Chairman or any other member of a Public
Service Commission shall only be removed from his office
by order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour
after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it
by the President, has, on enquiry held in accordance with G
the procedure prescribed in that behalf under article 145,
reported that the Chairman or such other member, as the
case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed.
(2) The President, in the case of the un'ion Commission H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

t
A or a Joint Commission, and the Governor in the case of a "
State Commission, may suspend from office the
Chairman or any other member of the Commission in
respect of whom a reference has been made to the
Supreme Court under clause (1) until the President has
B passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme
Court on such reference.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in clause ( 1), the President _,
may by order remove from office the Chairman or any '
other member of a Public Service Commission if the
c Chairman or such other members, as the case may be,--

(a) as adjudged an insolvent; or (b) engages during his
term of office in any paid employment outside the duties
of his office; or (c) is, in the opinion of the President.
D
(4) If the Chairman or any other member of a Public
Service Commission is or becomes in any way concerned
or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on
behalf of the Government of India or the Government of a
State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in
E any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise than
as a member and in common with the other members of
...
an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of
clause (1), be deemed to be to be guilty of misbehaviour."

F [emphasis supplied]

3. Article 317 makes it amply clear as to how the members
of the Public Service Commission are liable to be removed
from office and the founding fathers of our Constitution
incorporated t~is procedure in order to give the Chairman and ~
G Members security of tenure to safeguard them against
motivated or wrong charges of misbehavior. The obvious intent
behind the same is to protect them from undue political
pressures or personal favoritism and vendetta thereby enabling
th~ Public Service Commissions to discharge their constitutional
H ob igations in full measure.
RAM KUMAR KASHYAP AND ANR. v. UNION OF 607
INDIA [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the A
passing of the common order of suspension by the Hon'ble
Governor of the State of Haryana would cause adverse civil
consequences, they deserved a notice and ar opportunity of
being heard before such ordi;lr w<is Vi~ssed. The petitionf?rS
have cited several judgments of this court such G!S those B
delivered in State of Orissa v. Or. (Miss) Bina P?ni Qei Emd
others (AIR 1967 SC 1269); Sayeedur Rehman v. The S,tat~
of Bihar & others, (1973) 3 SCC 333; S.L. Kapoor v.
Jagmohan & others, (1980) 4 SCC 379; and, Olga Tellis &
others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others, (1985) 3 c
SCC 545, all of which affirm the principle that an adverse order
cannot be passed at the back of the affected party.

5. It is not necessary that principles of 'audi alterem
partem' rigorously followed in the domain of service law need
> " to be applied with the same degree of rigour in proceedings D
involving the removal and.suspension of the members of the
State Public Service Commission. This exceptional treatment
is mandated by Article 317. Furthermore, the issuance of
suspension orders is as pE?f" the
I
'procedure established by law'
and not in derogation from the. same. E

, 6. It will be useful to referfto a judgment of thi~ court in
Special Reference No. 1 of 1983, (1990) 4 sec 262, Wherein
it was held that the position of a Qhairman or a Member of a
Public Service Commission cannot pe equated with that of a F
public servant and hence the case law pertaining to the
suspension and removal of public employees has no relevance
in the context of the proceedings under Article 317.

7. The relevant observations were made at Para 9:
G
"9. The case of a government servant is, subject to the
special provisions,. governed by the law of master and
servant, but the position in the case of a member of the
commission is different. The latter holds a constitutional
post and is government by the special provisions dealing
H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009.J 12 S,C,R

I ;-
A with different aspei:ts pf his offic~ as envisi;!Qeci PY the
Articles 315 to 323 of Chapter II of Part XIV of the
constitution. In our view the decisions dealing with service
cases relied upon behalf of the respondent have no
application to the present matter and the reference will
B have to answered on the merits of the case with reference
to the complaint and the respondents' deference"

8. Furthermore this court in Reference No. 1 of 20,g~,
(2005) 6 sec 789, has held that no hearif1~ gr opp.ort4nity Qf
. ,

showing cause ag~inst the wr:ipq~eg r~ferem~e µn.d~r Artiole
c 317 (1) js n~i;ess~ry before rn~k.in9 the !i!Ctl..lil! r~fer~nce. The
relevcint observcitiqns are ali follows (Para. 2):
"2. We have heard the learned Addition~! Solicitor
General for the lJnioti !Qfllndia, as also the learned counsel
D for' the respondent on the preliminary objectjons. VVe cire
• '
of the opinion that no peari119 or oppgrtynity of shewing
cause against the prQp()sed r~f~r~nC.0.1.m~13r Article 317(1)
is necessary before making the reference. The first
objection is overruled.''
E 9. In Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, In Re, (2007) 11 SCC 547,
which concerned the removal of a member of the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission under Article 317 on grounds of
misbehaviour, this court had observed (Para. 1);

F "1 .... Sini;;e a request was made to the President of India
ta act in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution, the
placing of the respondent under suspension under Article
317(2) of the Constitution was prop~r."
10. It is clear from the perusal of th~ above cases that the
G petitioners were not entitled to an opportunity to shaw cause lo

or to be heard before. the. point of time that the orders of
suspension were passecl by the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana
under Article 317(2) a~er the Presictent had referrect the matter
to the Supreme Court, The r~tlonale behind empowering the
H Governor of a 6t~te to issue such an order for suspension even
RAM KUMAR KASHYAP AND ANR. v. UNION OF 609
,, INDIA [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

" _. before the reference is actually decided by the Supreme Court A
is to maintain the public trust and confidence in the impartial
and honest working of the said Public Service Commission. It
is a prerogative given to the State Executive, but the members
so suspended are given the opportunity to present their cases
when the actual reference Is decided upon by the Supreme B
Court. It is open to the members so suspended to present their
point of view at that stage. After all, it is only after the merits of
the case have been examined that the Supreme Court arrives 1

at an answer to the reference and communicates the same
decision to the President for further action.
c
11. The Public Service Commission is an institution of the
utmost importance created by the Constitution of India under
Article 315. For the efficient functioning of a democracy it is
imperative that the Public Service Commissions are manned
by people of the highest skill and irreproachable integrity, so D
''}
; ). that the selections to various public posts can be immunized
from all sorts of extraneous factors like political pressure or
personal favoritism and are made solely on considerations pf
merit.
) E
12. In Special Reference No. 1 of 1997 f2000) 4 SCC
309, this Court discussed the role of the members of the Public
Service Commissions and made the tallowing observations
with regard to their duties and qualifications (Para. 4):
"4.Keeping in line with the high expectations of their office F
and need to observe absolute integrity and impartiality in
the exercise of their powers and duties, the Chairman and
members of the Public Service Commission are required
to be selected on the basis of their merit, ability and
suitability and they in turn are expected to be models G
themselves in their functioning. The character and conduct
of the Chairman and members of the Commission, like
Caesar's wife, must therefore be above board. They
occupy a unique place and position and utmost objectivity
in the performance of their duties and integrity and H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A detachment ate essential requirements expected from the
Chairman and members of the Public Service •
Commissibns."

13. At Para 31 of the same:i. opinion, this Court further
stated:
8
"31.The credibility of the institution of Public Service
Commission is founded upon faith of the common man on
its proper functioning. The faith would be eroded and
confidence destroyed if it appears that the Chairman or
C the Members of the Commission act subjectively and not
objectively or that their actions are suspect. Society
expects honesty, integrity and complete objectivity from the
Chairman and Members of the Commission. The
Commission must act fairly, without any pressure or
o influence from any quarter, unbiased and impartially, so that
the society does not loose confidence in the Commission.
The high constitutional trustees, like the Chairman and
Members of the Public Service Commission must for ever
remain vigilant and conscious of these necessary
E adjuncts."

14. It is very clear that since the Public Service
Commissions are ~ constitutional creation, the principles of
se'fvice law that are ordinarily applicable in instances of
dismissals of government employees cannot be extended to
F the proceedings for the removal and suspension of the
members of the said Commissions. Hence, we are of the
opinion that the en bloc suspension of the 8 Members and
Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission by the
Hon'ble Governor of Haryana by an order dated 09.08.2008
G 1inder Article 317(2) of the Constitution and the impugned
notification dated 09.08.2008 are valid and not liable to be
quashed.

15. The Writ Petitions are dismissed.

H D.Q,. Writ Petitions dismissed.