Supreme Court of India
REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ARTICLE 317 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OFversus*
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 890
- Decided
- 8 July 2009
- Disposal
- Reference answered
- Bench
- K G BALAKRISHNAN
Holding
The Court held that there was no proved misbehaviour by the Chairman and therefore the reference was answered in the negative, allowing him to remain in office with full benefits.
Summary
The President, on the Governor's request, referred a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court to determine whether Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, should be removed on grounds of misbehaviour. Four specific allegations were examined: irregularities in a preliminary examination, misuse of government vehicles and staff, wrongful claim of house‑rent allowance, and dictatorial conduct. The Court held that Article 317 does not define "misbehaviour" and that a factual inquiry is required; it found no prima facie evidence supporting any of the charges. Evidence showed that the examination irregularities were due to computer error and departmental faults, the security vehicles were provided with consent due to his former role as DGP, the house‑rent allowance was permissible under state rules, and no proof of dictatorial behaviour was adduced. Consequently, the reference was answered in the negative, the Chairman was not removed, and he was entitled to continue in office with full pecuniary benefits.
Issues considered
- What constitutes "misbehaviour" under Article 317(1) of the Constitution for removal of a State Public Service Commission Chairman?
- Do the specific allegations against Shri Ashok Darbari amount to misbehaviour as defined by the Constitution?
- Should the Chairman be suspended or removed pending the inquiry?
- Is the Chairman entitled to pecuniary benefits during the period of suspension?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 145, s. Article 315, s. Article 316, s. Article 317
Subjects
Article 317misbehaviourpublic service commissionremoval of chairmanconstitutional lawinquirypecuniary benefitsadministrative law
Judgment
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 470
A REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 •
UNDER ARTICLE 317 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, 1950)
JULY 8, 2009
8 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., DALVEER BHANDARI
AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
c Article 317(1) - Chairman, State Public Service
Commission - Allegations of 'misbehaviour' against -
Reference for inquiry and report whether Chairman,
Chattisgarh Public Service Commission ought to be removed
from office on ground of misbehaviour - Held: Article 317
-
~
D does not define 'misbehaviour' nor does it enumerate what
acts would constitute 'misbehaviour' - It is only after a fact
finding inquiry is held, it could be said whether alleged acts
committed by Chairman amounted to misbehaviour - In the
instant case, there is no merit in the allegations - All the ,_
E
charges leveled against the Chairman are baseless and there
is not even prima facie proof of misbehaviour much less
.,..
proved misbehaviour on his part - The Chairman,
Chattisgarh Public Service Commission would be deemed to
have continued in his office till the time his appointment might
have come to an end, with all pecuniary benefits which would
F have been due to him but for his suspension.
The instant reference was made under Clause (1) of
Article 317 of the Constitution of India for inquiry and
report as to whether the Chairman of the Ctiattisgarh
G Public Service Commission ought to be removed from
his office on the ground of misbehaviour. The charges .
against the Chairman were: (1) that he committed great
irregulari~ies and mismanagement in the process of
preliminary examination conductecj by the Chattisgarh
H 470
REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ART. 317 (1) OF 471
THE CONSTITUTION
Public Service Commission for the year 2005, as for A
General Studies paper there was a mixing up of model
answer keys; (2) that he misused government vehicles,
drivers and orderlies which were provided to him during
.
.-
his posting as Director General of Police and he did not
surrender the vehicles nor did he relieve the drivers and B
orderlies after his appointment as Chairman of Public
Service Commission on 21.10.2004; (3) that he was
staying in the Police Mess, still he claimed house rent
allowance not admissible to him under law; and. (4) that
in discharging his official functions as the Chairman of c
the Public Service Commission, he acted in a dictatorial
manner and his style of functioning was objectionable.
Answering the Reference in the negative, the Court
.J
HELD: 1. Article 317 of the Constitution of India does D
not define 'misbehaviour' nor does it enumerate what
acts would constitute 'misbehaviour'. It is only after a fact
finding inquiry is held, it could be said whether the
alleged acts committed by the Chairman amount to
'misbehaviour'. The Chairman of the Public Service E
Commission is expected to show absolute integrity and
impartiality in exercising the powers and duties as
Chairman. His actions shall be transparent and he shall .
discharge his functions with utmost sincerity and
integrity. If there is any failure on his part, or he commits F
any act which is not befitting the honour and prestige as
a Chairman of.the Public Service Commission, it would
amount to misbehaviour as contemplated under the
Constitution. If it is proved that he has shown any favour
to the candidate during the selection process, that would G
certainly be an act of misbehaviour. [Para 3) [475-F-H]
2.1. In the instant case, in respect of charge 1, it may
be noticed that for the conduct of the examination, there
is Controller of Examinations in the Public Service
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A Commission. The Chairman and other members of the
•
Commission decide the policies regarding priorities and
dates of examination. RW 2, who was the Secretary to the
Governor, deposed that the answer keys and the
questions got mixed up due to computer error. The
8 witnesses examined did not depose that there was any
negligence on the part of the Chairman of the Public
Service Commission. It has come in evidence that on the
basis of irregularities, a departmental inquiry was initiated
by the then Controller of Examinations. In view of the
C evidence adduced, it is clear that if any irregular!ties had
taken place in the conduct of the examination, it was due
to the fault of some of the officers of the Public Service
Commission and not by tha Chairman of the Public
Service Commission, who was unnecessarily involved in
the controversy. [Para 5] [476-C-H; 477-A-B]
0
2.2. As regards charge 2, it has come in evidence that
the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, before
his appointment as such, had been the Director General
of Police of the State which was infested with Naxalites
E and, therefore, he required additional police protection
and the security cover including security vehicles and
some staff members in the form of guards and orderlies.
In the circumstances, it could only be assumed that the
Chairman being ex-DGP of the Naxalites infested State.•
F was given some additional security, otherwise the same
could have been withdrawn.· There is no case that he
willfully disobeyed any orders. There is, thus, no merit in
the allegation. (Para 6] [477-C-H; 478-A-B]
2.3. So far as charge 3 is concerned, the Chairman
G has explained that after his assumption of office, he
requested the Chief Secretary to allot the official
residence which was formerly occupied by his
predecessor-in-office, but he was not allotted the
bungalow and he had no other option but to continue to
H
.'
REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ART. 317 (1) OF 473
THE CONSTITUTION
occupy a room in the "Police Club" which was the safe A
• place available to him; and all retired IPS Officers are
entitled to use the mess during their lifetime. He also
received communication from the department that he
was entitled to HRA @ 15% as per the rules. The
Accountant General of the State deposed that HRA was B
admissible to the Chairman as per the rules issued by the
State Government and there was nothing irregular in the
Chairman claiming the house rent allowance. There is,
thus, no basis for the allegation. [Para 7] [478-D-H; 479-
A] c
2.4. With regard to charge 4, no details have been
divulged and no evidence has been adduced to show in
what manner the Chairman Public Service Commission
acted in dictatorial manner. The Chairman deposed as
,,. -.
RW-1 that when he assumed the Office, 50% of the D
Members did not belong to Government service having
10 years experience as provided for under proviso 1 to
clause (1) of Article 316 of the Constitution. Some of them
were appointed on account of their political background.
- He further deposed that all these members wanted to
know the confidential matters regardlng the examinations
and gave lists of persons who should be appointed as
E
the question paper setters. It is stated that these members
did not like the Chairman taking strict actions regarding
the conduct of the examination and other official F
functions.There is nothing to show that the Chairman
acted in a dictatorial manner. [Para 8] [479-C-H; 480-8-E]
2.5. The Chairman, Chattisgarh Public Service
Commission has not exhibited any improper behaviour;
G
___,
all the charges levelled against him are baseless and
)>.
there is not even prima facie proof of misbehaviour much
less proved misbehaviour on his part. It is deemed that
he should have continued in his office till the time his
'.
appointment might ordinarily had come to an end. As a
H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] rn S.C.R.
A result, he should be given all pecuniary benefits which
would have been due to him but for the suspension.
[Paras 8 and 9)
ADVISORY JURISDICTION : Reference No. 1 of 2006
B Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India in Respect
of Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman, Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission.
.
Amarendra Sharan, ASG, Vivek K. Tankha, S.K. Gambhir,
c T.S. Doabia, Jugal Kishore Gilda, AAG, Arjun Harkauli, Ratna
Kaul, Vaibhav Srivastava, Prashant Kumar, Yogmaya Agnihotri,
Ashok Kumar Singh, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kumar
Choudhary, Rucha A. Mayee, Sanjay Visen, Amit Anand Tiwary
and Sanchit Guru for the appearing parties.
D The Opinion of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJl.1. Under Clause (1) of Article
317, the President of India referred the matter to the Supreme
Court of India for an inquiry and report as to whether Shri Ashok
E Darbari, Chairman of the Chattisgarh Public Service
Commission ought to be removed from the office of Chairman
of ttie Commission on the grounds of misbehaviour. This was
done by the President pursuant to the request made by the
Governor of Chattisgarh on 24.2.2006 containing certain
F allegations of misbehaviour against the Chairman of the Public
Service Commission. Notice was given to the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission, Attorney General of India and also
the Advocate General of the State of Chattisgarh. On behalf of
the State, certain specific allegations have been made. The
G State proposed to adduce evidence in support of the
allegations. 20 witnesses were examined in support of the
allegations and 3 witnesses were examined in support of the • --
Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Several
documents were also produced.
H 2. We heard the Shri Amarendra Sharan, ASG, Additional
REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ART. 317 (1) OF 475
THE CONSTITUTION [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
Advocate General of the State of Chattisgarh and also learned A
Senior Counsel Shri S.K. Gambhir for the Chattisgarh PSC and
also Shri Vivek K. Tankha, learned senior Counsel on behalf
of Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman, PSC.
3. The State PSC is constituted under Article 315 of the 8
Constitution. Constitutional makers decided ---..__ to have an
independent body to recruit civil servants by open competition
and with that object, an independent and impartial body was
proposed to be constituted as the Public Service Commission.
With a view to uphold the dignity and independence of the body, C
salaries, allowance and pension payable to the members of the
staff of the Commission are to be charged on the Consolidated
Fund of the State and the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission is removable only by following the procedure laid
- down under the Constitution of India. Under sub-clause (1) of
Article 317, the Chairman or any member of the Public Service D
Commission shall only be removed from his office by order of
the President on the ground of misbehaviour after the Supreme
Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on
inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that
behalf under Article 145, on a report that the Chairman or such E
other member, ought to be removed from the office. Article 317
of the Constitution does not define 'misbehaviour' or enumerate
what acts would constitute 'misbehaviour'. It is only after a fact
finding inquiry is held, it could be said whether the alleged acts
committed by the Chairman amount to 'misbehaviour'. The F
Chairman of the Public Service Commission is expected to
show absolute integrity and impartiality in exercising the powers
and duties as Chairman. His actions shall be transparent and
he shall discharge his functions with utmost sincerity and
integrity. If there is any failure on his part, or he commits any G
act which is not befitting the honour and prestige as a Chairman
of the Public Service Commission, it would amount to
misbehaviour as contemplated under the Constitution. If it is
proved that he has shown any favour to the candidate during
the selection process, that would certainly be an act of H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.
~
A misbehaviour. The charges levelled against the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission Shri Ashok Darbari are to be
viewed in this background.
4. It is alleged that ever since Shri Ashok Darbari had.been
appointed, there were complaints in respect of his working
B
ability and impartiality as Chairman of the Public Service
Commission. In this case, four specific charges have been
alleged against Shri Ashok Darbari. We will consider each
charge allegedly made against him.
c 5. The first charge made against him is that he committed
grave irregularities and mismanagement in conducting the
preliminary examination conducted by the Chattisgarh Public
Service Commission for the year 2005. To prove this charge,
PW1, PW 10, PW 16, PW 17, PW 18, PW 19, PW 20 and
D RW 1 were examined. It may be noticed that for the conduct of • ...
the examination, there is Controller of Examinations in the
Public Service Commission. The Chairman along with other
members of the Commission decide the policies regarding
priorities and dates of examination. The main complaint
E regarding the Preliminary Civil Examination held in 2005 was
that for General Studies paper, there was a mixing up of model
answer keys which prompted the leader of a political party to
make a complaint to the Chief Minister. RW 2 who was the
Secretary to the Governor deposed that the answer keys and
F the questions got mixed up due to computer error. The
witnesses examined did not depose that there was any
negligence on the part of the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission. A series of individual complaints have been
referred to but in these matters, the Chairman of the Public
Service Commission was not found responsible. The Deputy
G ,_
Controller of Examinations was examined as PW 10. He was
specifically asked whether Mr. Ashok Darbari was responsible '
for the irregularities, if any and he could not give a satisfactory
answer to these questions. It has come in evidence that on the
basis of irregularities, a departmental inquiry was initiated by
H
REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ART. 317 (1) OF 477
THE CONSTITUTION [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
• the then Controller of Examinations and that PW 10 was a A
witness in the departmental inquiry and he gave evidence
against the then Controller of Examinations. All these facts
would only indicate that the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission was unnecessarily dragged on to this controversy
and in view of the evidence adduced, it is clear that if any 8
irregularities had taken place in the conduct of the examination,
it was due to the fault of some of the officers of the Public
.,j
Service Commission and not by Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman
of the Public Service Commission.
6. The second charge against Shri Ashok Darbari,
c
j
Chairman of the Public Service Commission was that he had
unauthorisedly misused the Government vehicles, drivers and
orderlies which were provided to him during his officiation in
.. the post of Director General of Police and he had not
D
surrendered his vehicles or discharged the drivers or orderlies
from service, after his appointment on 21.10.2004 as the
Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Prior to the
appointment of Shri Ashok Darbari as the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission, he was Director General of Police
of the State of Chattisgarh. Shri Ashok Darbari who was E
examined as RW 1 stated that the Chief Minister required him
to join as Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Till July
2004, Shri Ashok Oarbari was continuing as DGP of
Chattisgarh. A person who was much junior to him was
proposed to be appointed as OGP of the State. This was F
approved by the Central Ministry of Home Affairs and at that
time the Chief Minister required him to join as the Chairman of
the Public Service Commission. As Shri Ashok Darbari had
been the Director General of Police of the State which was
affected by Naxalites, he required additional police protection G
' > and the security cover included security vehicles, a motor cycle
and some staff members in the form of guards and orderlies.
RW 1 deposed that the Chief Minister agreed to give the
security cover and it was under these circumstances that some
of the vehicles were being used by him. The fact that these H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. .--
~
A vehicles were being used must have been with the consent of
the departmental authorities. They could have very well
withdrawn the security arrangements given to Shri Ashok
Darbari. There is no case that he willfully disobeyed any orders.
From the allegations made against Shri Darbari, it could only
B be assumed that he being ex-DGP of the Naxalite affected
State, was given some additional security while discharging his
duties as the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
Hence, we are unable to find any proved misbehaviour and •
impropriety on his part.
c 7. The third allegation made against Shri Ashok Darbari
is that he claimed house rent allowance not admissible to him
l
under law. It was contended that as the Chairman of the Public
Service Commission, he was entitled to the perquisites of a
Grade I Officer of the State Government and the main allegation
D was that Shri Ashok Darbari was staying in a police mess and
yet he was drawing HRA which was not admissible to him. Shri
Ashok Darbari has explained that after his assumption of office,
he requested the Chief Secretary to allot the official residence
which was formerly occupied by his predecessor-in-office but
E Mr. Ashok Darbari was not allotted the building and he had no
other option but to continue to occupy a room in the "Police
Club" which was the safe place available to him and all retired
IPS Officers are entitled to use the mess during their lifetime.
He also received communication from the department that he
F was entitled to HRA@ 15% as per the rules. To explain the
position further, the Accountant General of the State of
Chattisgarh was examined as RW 3 and he deposed that Rule
14 and 18 did not say anything about house rent allowance and
Rule 19 deals with House Rent Allowance and under Rule 2(f)
G Chairman is governed by Rule 19 and in view of Rule 19
coupled with Rule 2 (f), the HRA was applicable to the ..
Chairman as per the rules issued by the Chattisgarh
Government and he also deposed that on 10.4.2006, all the
doubts regarding the admissibility of allowance stood clarified
H and there was nothing irregular in Shri Ashok Darbari claiming
REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ART. 317 (1) OF 479
THE CONSTITUTION (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
_.
the house rent allowance. We do not find any basis for the A
- allegation made against the Chairman, Chattisgarh Public
Service Commi$sion. On appointment as Chairman of Public
Service Commission, the State Government should have
provided him official quarters befitting the honour and
respectability of the office which he occupied. The State had 8
not provided any such building at the disposal of the Chairman
and he had to stay in the police mess almost throughout his
" career as the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. It
is quite surprising that the Chairman, Public Service
Commission was forced to occupy the police mess and had c
to suffer these type of allegations that he had drawn HRA for
the period he had stayed in the police mess.
8. The fourth allegation made against Shri Ashok Darbari
-· is that in discharging his official functions as the Chairman of
the Public Service Commission, he ·acted in a dictatorial D
manner and that his style of functioning was objectionable. The
Chairman of the Public Service Commission as RW 1 deposed
that when he took over as Chairman of the Public Service
Commission, there were four other members and 50% of them
did not belong to Government service having 10 years E
experience as provided for under proviso 1 of clause (1) of
Article 316 of the Constitution. Many of them were appointed
on account of their political background. He further deposed
~·
that all these members wanted to know the confidential matters
like where the question papers were printed and who sets the F
question papers, etc. Some of the members gave a list of
persons who should be appointed as the question paper
setters. Though the meetings of the committees were on fixed
schedules, these members used to come very late. It is alleged
- ~
that these members did not like the Chairman taking strict G
actions regarding the conduct of the examination and other
official functions. So in respect of the charge alleged that Shri
Ashok Darbari acted in a dictatorial manner, the details are not
divulged and no evidence has been adduced to show in what
manner Shri Ashok Darbari acted in dictatorial manner. As H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A regards the conduct of the examination, some problem had "
arisen and they cannot be attributed to Shri Ashok Oarbari and
the Controller of Examinations and some other officials were
responsible for committing such irregularities. The
-
postponement of examination was also decided upon by the
B Commission and other members also participated in that
meeting. RW 1 was extensively cross-examined by the learned
Counsel for the State but nothing has been brought out in his
evidence as to how he had acted in a dictatorial manner. We •
are unable to find any merits in this allegation. We hold that Shri
c Ashok Darbari has not exhibited any improper behaviour and
all the charges levelled against him are baseless and there is
not even prima facie proof of misbehaviour on the part of Shri
Ashok Darbari, Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
9. In our opinion, there is no evidence of proved
D misbehaviour against Shri Ashok Darbari. Hence, reference is
answered in negative and it is deemed that he should have
continued in his office till the time his appointment might
ordinarily had come to an end. As a result, he should be given
all pecuniary benefits which would have been due to him but
E for the suspension. The reference stands answered accordingly.
R.P. Reference answered.
,
.-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 317"Sign in to search