Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Chairman and the three members committed misbehaviour on charges 2‑5, 8 and 9, establishing justifiable grounds for their removal, while rejecting the contention that lack of qualifications alone amounted to misbehaviour.

Summary

The President of India referred the conduct of the Haryana Public Service Commission Chairman Mehar Singh Saini and three members to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1) for alleged misbehaviour, including irregular selections, use of bogus certificates, and refusal to cooperate with vigilance investigations. The Court examined whether the proceedings under Article 317(1) are sui generis, the applicable standard of proof, and the scope of its jurisdiction to consider additional explanatory charges. It held that the inquiry is neither criminal nor service law, applying the rule of reasonable preponderance of probabilities, and that the Court may entertain supplementary charges linked to the original reference. The Court found that the respondents failed to maintain the required standards of integrity, particularly in the selection of a drug‑inspector candidate and in withholding records, establishing misbehaviour on charges 2‑5, 8 and 9, while rejecting the claim that lack of qualifications alone constituted misbehaviour. Consequently, the Court concluded that there are justifiable grounds for their removal from office. The reference was answered in the affirmative, confirming the removal of the Chairman and the three members.

Issues considered

The applicability of Article 317(1) to the present inquiry and whether the Supreme Court can consider additional or explanatory charges beyond those originally referenced.
The appropriate standard of proof for a misbehaviour inquiry under Article 317(1).
Whether the alleged lack of qualifications, experience, and stature of the Chairman and members amounts to misbehaviour under Article 317(1).
Whether the selection of a candidate on the basis of a bogus certificate and related irregularities constitute misbehaviour.
Whether the refusal to cooperate with vigilance investigations and the claim of privilege amount to misbehaviour.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 161, s. Section 91, s. Section 93
Constitution of Indias. Article 124(4), s. Article 311, s. Article 316, s. Article 317(1)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. Section 123, s. Section 124
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 120B, s. Section 420, s. Section 468, s. Section 471
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order XXXVIII, Part VI, s. Rule 6 of Order XLVII

Subjects

misbehaviourArticle 317public service commissionremoval of constitutional office‑holderstandard of proofnatural justicequalification criterianon‑cooperation with investigationselection irregularitiesconstitutional law

Judgment

[2010)14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 647

REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317 (1) N0.2 OF 2008 A
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC AND
ORS.
NOVEMBER 12, 2010
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, K.S. PANICKER B
RADHAK~ISHNAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 317(1)- Reference to Supreme Court for inquiry c
into allegations of misbehaviour against Chairman/Members
.o f a Public· Service Commission - Nature of the proceedings
:... Standard of proof- HELD: The proceedings are neither akin
to those under service law nor to those under criminal law -
The nature of such proceedings is sui generis and the Court 0
can evolve its own procedure in consonance with the language
of Article 317(1) read with the provisions of the Supreme
Court Rules and the principles of natural justice - The
standard of proof applicable to such cases is not that required
under the criminal jurisprudence, i.e., to prove the charge E
'beyond any reasonable doubt'- The Court is not called upon
to record finding of guilt as if in a criminal case - The charge
has to be construed in a liberal manner so as to ensure
completion of inquiry in terms of Article 317(1) while keeping .
in mind the constitutional stature of the office - Where the
facts supported by record point a finger at the Chairman/ F
Member of the Commission with some certainty, it may
amount to misbehaviour in the given facts and circumstances
of a case - Rule of 'reasonable preponderance of
probabilities' would be the right standard to be applied to such G
cases - Doctrines - Rule of 'reasonable preponderance of
probabilities' - Ma?<im 'Qui non prohibit quod prohibere potest
facere videtur' - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Or. 38, Part
i':f, Or. 47, r 6 - lnhere.nt powers of Supreme Court.
647 H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Article 317(1) - Reference to Supreme Court - Framing
of articles of charge - HELD: The jurisdiction being of limited
scope, Supreme Court cannot frame such entirely new articles
of charge which have no link, connection or are not
explanatory to the original charges stated in the Reference -
B However, the Court can examine additional facts/subsequent
events having a direct bearing, as well as additional or
supplementary articles of charge which are explanatory or
intrinsically related to the charges specified in the Reference.

Article 317(1) - Removal of Chairman/Member of a
C Public Service Commission 'on the ground of misbehavior'
- Allegations against the Chairman/Members of improper
selection of a candidate on the basis of bogus certificate
which led to their arrest and prosecution for various offences
under /PC and Preven tion of Corruption Act - The
D expressions 'misbehaviour' (Art. 317(1)), 'proved
misbehaviour' (Article 124) and 'misconduct' (Article 311) -
Explained - HELD: The expression 'on the ground of
misbehaviour' is an expression of wide connotation and cannot
be given a restricted meaning - It should be understood
E keeping in view the nature of the misbehaviour complained
of, the office in question and the standard expected to be
maintained by the constitutional body in discharge of its
functions - The term must be construed very liberally so as
to bring within its ambit the behaviour of the Chairman/
F Membf!Jr of the Commission, which, as per settled norms, was
not expected of him/her - The expression 'misbehaviour'
generally refers to a conduct which might erQde the faith and
confidence of the public at large in such constitutional office
- In the instant case, the conduct of the Chairman/Members
G of the Commission in processing the application of the
.candidate concerned and selecting him does not meet the
standards of behaviour, integrity and rectitude required to be
· maintained by the office they were holding - Their behaviour
in this regard would certainly fall within the ambit of
H misbehaviour justifying their removal from service.
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN , HPSC 649

Article 317(1) -Allegations against Chairman/Members A
of a Public Service Commission of withholding the information
required in the investigation into the charges of illegal and
improper selections made by the Commission, and despite
directions by courts, refusing to cooperate in the investigation
- Claim of privilege and immunity - HELD: It has been B
established that there was definite non·cooperation on the part
of the Chairman/Members of the Commission in furnishing
records and documents to the investigating agencies and this
attitude of the persons concerned and claim of privilege lacks
·bona fides - High Court has clearly heid that the claim of c
privilege for non-production of documents with reference to
ss. 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act was not sustainable -
State had the right to get the records from the Commission
for the purpose of investigation and on latter's failure,
provisions of s.93 CrPC were rightly invoked- The SLP
0
challenging the order of High Court naving been dismissed,
the order inter se the parties had attained finality and, keeping
in view the doctrine, 'estoppel per rem judicatum ', it is
impermissible to examine such an order- Further, there has
been an abuse of the office of Chairman and Members of the
Commission, by the respondents, by withholding the material E
records, passing resolutions contrary to law, filing incorrect
replies in judicial proceedings and committing manipuiations/
interpolations in regard to answer·sheets of the candidates -
They are guilty of misbehaviour on this count as well -
Doctrine, 'estoppel per rem judicatum' - Judicial propriety - F
Evidence Act 1872- ss.123 and 124.

Articles 317(1) rlw Article 316- Reference for removal
of Chairman/Members of a Public Service Commission on
the ground that their qualifications, experience and stature G
were not of the required standard and their appointments were
made with a view to ensure that they would. further the
objectives of the party in power - HELD: There is no
constitutional requirement of any particular academic
qualification for appointment as Officiai!Nor;·official Member H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A of the Commission - On facts, it cannot be said t~at the
incumbents were guilty of misbehaviour on this count.

Article 316 - Appointment of Chairman/Members of a
Public Service Commission - Desirability of providing
qualification or experience - HELD · /s a function of
8
Parliament and it would not be in consonance with the
constitutional scheme that Supreme Courl should venture into
reading any specific qualifications in Article 316 or provide
any specific guidelines in this regard - However, keeping in
view the number of cases referred to Supreme Court in terms
C of Article 317(1) in recent years itself needs the attention of
Parliamentarians and the quarters concerned to this aspect.

Evidence:

0 Proceedings under Arlicle 317(1) of the Constitution -
Record ofjudicial proceedings, to which the respondents were
parlies, produced before Supreme Courl - HELD: Production
of such material has not caused any prejudice to the
respondents - They had full opporlunity to defend themselves
E in the inquiry- They were granted liberty to rebut the evidence
led against them but they did not do so - The reply filed by
them is vague and ex facie unsatisfactory.

Administrative Law:

F Public functionaries - Chairman/Members of a Public
Service Commission - Accepting of application after the last
date - Manipulation in the date of its receipt - Selecti0n of
the candidate on the basis of bogus certificate - HELD: Public
Service Commissions are expected to adopt a fair and
G judicious process of selection to ensure that deserving and
meritorious candidates are inducted in State services - In the
instant case, the process adopted by the Commission, its
Chairman and Members was not in consonance with the
known canons of administrative jurisprudence - The conduct
H of Chairman and Members not Of!IY shows omissions and
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN , HPSC 651

commissions on their part, but administrative lapses as well- A
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 317(1).

The Haryana Public Service Commission was
reconstituted with the appointments of its Chairman and
Members between 5.7.2004 and 15.12.2004. It came to the
B
notice of the subsequent Government that various
irregularities and illegalities, such as acts of favouritism,
discrimination and violation of rules/regulations had been
committed by the Commission in the process of
selection. Vigilance enquiries were initiated. First
Information Reports were registered for the alleged C
irregularities, illegalities and acts of commissions and
omissions by the Chairman and the Members of the
Commission. For the investigations and enquiries,
records were. required by the investigating agencies, -but
the Commission did not furnish the same nor did it D
cooperate at all in tt.e investigation. Ultimately, the
Governor of the State made a reference to the President
of India who, in turn referred the matter to the Supreme
Court under Article 31_7 (1) of the Constitution of India,
1950 for enquiry and report " as to whether the existing E
Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service
Commission, ought, on the grounds of misbehaviour, be
removed from the office of the Chairman and Members
of the Commission."
F
In the Presidential Reference, the charges against
the Chairman and the Members were: (i) that there were
.serious irregularities in the appointments made to the
posts of Chairman .and Members of the Commission;
which .were made without due regard to their G
qualifications, experieJ:lce, status and accomplishments,
required. f9r the said constitutional posts; (ii) that four
Members of the Selection Committee (one of whom later
became the Chairman of. the· Commission) recommended
the name of one 'PS' for the post of Drug Inspector on
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the basis of a bogus certificate for which an investigation
was conducted by the State Vigilance Bureau and , ·
subsequently, an FIR was registered against these
persons for various offences under the Penal Code and
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for which
8 these persons were arrested and the challan was filed in
the trial court; and (iii) that the Chairman and eight
Members of the Commission, in spite of the directions
issued by the Supreme Court, refused to co~operate in
the investigation being carried out by the State Vigilance
c Bureau in the complaints regarding selections made by
the Commission.

By order dated 9.8.2008 passed by the Governor of
the State, the Chairman and all the Members were placed
under suspension. Meanwhile six Members vacated the
D office as their term ended by effiux of time, and the
Chairman ('MSS') and two Members ('SS' and 'RK'), the
respondents, continued as the Chairman and the
Members under suspension. The legality of the order of
suspension was challenged before the Supreme Court in
E a writ petition, which was dismissed and, as such, the
su~pension order attained finality 1• ~

During the pendency of the matter before the
Supreme Court and because of subsequent events, the
F State Government filed additional articles of charge and,
ultimately, nine articles of charge (including Articles 9f
charges 1 to 3 as mentioned in the reference) wer e
approved by the Court for consideration.

It was contended for the respondents that the
G jurisdiction of the Court in terms of Article 317(1) of the
Constitution was a limited one and the Court had to
conduct i~ inquiry and record its findings in the report
only in.relation to the articles of charge referred to by the
1. Ram Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India [2009] 12 SCR 601=(2009) 9 SCC
H 378
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 653

President in exercise of its powers under Article 317(1), A
and it had no jurisdiction to go into the merits or
otherwise of the additional articles of charge; that there
was no evidence on record to substantiate any of the
approved articles of charge.
B
The question for consideration before the Court
was: whether the conduct of the Chairman/Members of
the Commission amounted to misbehaviour in the light
of the approved articles of charge and the evidence.
produced on record, which would justify their removal· in C
terms of Article 317 (1) of the Constitution?

Answering the reference in the affirmative, the Court

HELD:
0
1.1 The proceedings before this Court under Article
173(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 are neither akin
to proceedings under service law nor criminal law. The
procedure for removal has neither been stated in the
Constitution in detail nor has this ~ Court framed an.y
';:elaborate rules in exercise of its power under Article 145 E
of the Constitution. The nature of the proceeding is such
that it may become necessary for the Court to adopt a
procedure befitting the facts and circumstances of a
given case. The burden of pr~of applicable to such cases
is not that required under the criminal jurisprudence, i.e., F
to prove the charge 'beyond any _reasonable doubt'. Rule
of *reasonable preponderance of probabilities' would be
the right standard to be applied to ·such cases. The Court
is not called upon to record finding of guilt as if in a
criminal case. The charge has to ~e construed in a liberal G
manner so as to ensure completion of inquiry In terms
of Article 317(1) of the Constitution while keeping in mind
the constitutional stature of the office. The content and
nature of the proceedings before this Court under Article
317(1) is sui generis and the Court can evolve its own H
654 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A procedure in consonance with the principles of natural
justice to suit the facts of a given case and to ensure that
ends of justice are achieved and there is no abuse of the
process of Court. [para 33,35 and 86] [703-G-H; 704-A-C;
748-E-G; 705-D]
B
1.2 The Supreme Court, in exercise of its power
under Article 145 of the Constitution of India, 1950, has,
with the approval of the President, framed Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 for regulating generally the practice and
procedure of this Court and has provided rules under
C Part VI, Order XXXVIII thereof for conducting inquiry
under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. But a plain
reading of the Rules clearly shows that no detailed
procedure has been provided so far, as to how and in
what manner the inquiry shall be conducted and what
D shall be the scope of the inquiry and the manner in which
the evidence shall be recorded. Thus, it has been left to·
the discretion of this Court to follow a procedure which
is in consonance with the language of Article 317(1), read
with the Rules and principles of natural justice. Inherent
E power of this Court is wide enough to enunciate such a
procedure, with reference to the facts and circumstances
of a given case, as Rule 6 of Order XLVII of the Supreme
Court Rules specifically provides that nothing in these
Rules shalf be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the
F inherent powers of the Court to make such orders, as
may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court. [para 24,25 and 27]
[694-H; 695-A-B; G-H; 696-A-B]

G 2.1 The articles of charge, which are referred to the
Supreme Court by the President, are the very foundation
of the reference proceedings. The reference jurisdiction,
being advisory in nature and, as such, being the
jurisdiction of limited scope in contradistinction to the
H original or the appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court,
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 655

in exercise of its limited jurisdiction, cannot frame such A
entirely new articles of charge which have no link,
connection or are not even explanatory to the original
charges stated in the Presidential Reference, nor can it
try them as part of the inquiry being conducted under
Article 317(1) of the Constitution. However, the inquiry s
proceedings before the Supreme Court cannot be
circumscribed by the Presidential Reference under Article
317(1) stricto sensu that too to the extent that the Court
canrtot examine any additional facts/subsequent events
having a direct bearing, additional or supplementary c
articles of charge which are explanatory or intrinsically
related to the charges specified in the Presidential
Reference. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to
examine additional or explanatory charges, records,
documents, evidence and facts which may come to light
0
even subsequent to the Presidential Reference in
exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under Article 317(1)
of the Constitution. [para 27, 30 and 69] [697-D-E; 701-B-
C; 733-B]

Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India E
[1983] 3 SCR 639 = (1983) 4 SCC 258; and Supreme Court
Advocate-on-Record Association v. Union of India 1993 (2)
Suppl. SCR 659 = (1993) 4 SCC 441 - relied on.

Reference under Article 317( 1) of the Constitution of India F
[1983] 3 SCR 639=(1983) 4 SCC 258; andRe: Smt. Sayalee
Sanjeev Joshi 2001 {7) SCR 116 = (2007) 11 SCC 547 -
referred to.

Re: Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi 2007 (7) SCR 116 =
(2007) 11 SCC 547; Ram Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India G
[2009] 12 SCR 601=(2009) 9 sec 378- relied on.

2.2 Charges 3, 5 and 9, relate to refusal on the part
of all the respondents to cooperate and to supply
documents withholding of the material records which H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A were required by the investigating agencies as well as by
the Government. Charges 5 and 9, as approved by the
Court, thus, are explanatory and intrinsically inter-
connected to Charge 3 as was mentioned in the
Presidential Reference Thus, these can be examined by
8 the Court on merits. Charge 4, in fact, is repetition in a
concise form of the paragraphs mentioned in the letter ,
of the Governor addressed to the President of India,
which itself is the foundation for making of the Reference
by the President. The illegalities, ma.nipulations and
c interpolations had been · referred to not only on the
records of this case but even in the writ petitions filed
before the High Court. In terms of para 8 of Governor's
letter, it is alleged that a reply had been ·filed by the
Chairman and Members of the Commission in an unlawful
manner to cover up their own mistakes. Further, Charge
0
8 is merely ancillary to Charge 4 which its.e lf is not beyond
the record which was placed before the President and,
in any case, all these facts have come to light
subsequently. [para 39-40] [707-A, F-G; 708-A-B]

E 2.3 Charges 6 and 7 of approved articles of charge
are inter-connected. These pertain to the alleged
malicious acts of influencing the subordinates to carry
out intended manipulations to favour desired persons in
selectiqns, and the alleged conduct of the Chairman in
F defending such patently iUegal acts. However, it may be
noted that these approved articles of charge are totally
independent and are not incidental or explanatory to the
articles of charge specifjed in the Presidential Reference.
They do not even emerge directly from the record
G produced before this Court. Charges 6 and 7, therefore,
do not require examination by this Court as they are ex-
facie beyond the permissible scope of the Presidential
Reference. Further, though approved articles of charge
have been framed against all the private respondents,
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 657

pending the proceedings, six of them have ceased to be A
the Members of the Commission as their terms of
appointment have come to an end by efflux of time and,
accepting the request on behalf of the State Government,
this Court would not be examining the alleged
misbehaviour of these private respondents. [para 41 and B
49] [708-0, 715-G-H; 716-A-0]

Reference 1 of 1983 (1990) 4 SCC 262- referred to.

3.1 Higher .the public office, greater is the
responsibility. The adverse impact of lack of probity in C
discharge of functions of the Public Service Commission
can result in defects not only in the process of selection
but also in the appointments to the public offices which,
in turn, will affect effectiveness of administration of State.
The working of the Public Service Commission and its D
Members has to be of impeccable int~grity and rectitude.
The object should be to provide the best persons from
the available candidates for appointment in the State/
Central cadres. This has to be done by adopt'ing a
judicious, fair and transparent method of selection, free E
of influence from any quarter in the Government or
otherwise. [para 2-4 and 22] [673-0; 693-C]

Re: Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman Bihar PSC 2000
(2) SCR 688 = (2000) 4 sec 309 - relied on

Metropolitan Properties Co. vs. Lannon (1968) 3 All ER
304 - referred to

French Administrative Law by Profs. Brown and
Garner's, 3rd ed. (1983) - referred to. G

3.2 'Misbehaviour' in contradistinction to 'misconduct'
and 'proved misbehaviour'

The condition precedent to an order being passed by
H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the President of India, removing the Chairman/Member of
the Commission from office, is a report of the Supreme
Court to the President recording a finding after inquiry
that the Chairman/Member ought to be removed from
office on the ground of misbehaviour. The plain language
s of Article 317(1) indicates that the expression 'on the
ground of misbehaviour' is an expression of wide
connotation and cannot be given a restricted meaning.
Normally, such term should be understood keeping in
view the nature of the misbehaviour complained of, the
c office in question and the standards expected to be
maintained by the constitutional body in discharge of its
functions. [para 42] [709-C-D]

3.3 The framers of the Constitution opted to use
different expressions in other Articles relating to
D misconduct or misbehaviour of other Constitutional
institutions. This itself indicates the clarion intent of the
framers to correlate a misconduct or misbehaviour to the
constitutional status held by the person in terms of
expected standards of performance, functions, integrity
E and rectitude. While in Article 317(1) of the Constitution
the expression 'on the ground of misbehaviour' has been ·
used, which is to be established by the report of this
Court, in Article 124{4) the expression 'on the ground of
proved misbehaviour or incapacity' indicates a condition
F precedent to removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court
from office. To demonstrate this clear distinction,
reference can usefully be made to Article 311 of the
Constitution dealing with civil services. The concept of
doctrine of pleasure, which is applicable to civil servants,
G Is not attracted in the constitutional appointments under
Articles 124 and 316. Removal is possible only when the
conditions postulated under these Articles are satisfied.
[para 42] [709-E-G; 71 0-B]

H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 659

Law Lexicon 2nd Ed. 1997 - referred to. A

Reference No.1 of 2003 (2009) 1 SCC 344 - referred
to.
3.4 Neither 'misbehaviour' nor 'misconduct' has been
defined in the Constitution or even in the Central Civil .8
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
Once an expression has not been defined, then it must
be understood and explained in its common parlance,
keeping in view the object sought to be achieved.
'Misbehaviour', when employed in respect of holders of C
high offices, has a well understood and well defined
meaning according to the tradition and standards
maintained b:,t the members of a particular service or
office. [para 45] [711-F-H; 712-A]
D
R.P. Kapurv. S. Partap Singh Kairon [(1961) 63 Punj LR
780- referred to. Narotanmal Chouraria v. M. R. ·Murli 2004
(1 ) Suppl. SCR 266 = (2004) 5 sec 689; and State of
Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable 1992 ( 3 ) SCR 634 =
(1992) 4 SCC 54; and Union of India v. J. Ahmed 1979 ( 3) E
SCR 504 = [(1979) 2 SCC 286 - referred to.

3.5 All these expressions, namely, 'misbehaviour',
'proved misbehaviour' and 'misconduct', fall under
different domains of jurisdiction and operate in distinct
and different fields. The distinction, primarily, is that of P
degree, intent and expected standard required to be
maintained in relation to the office that the delinquent
holds. Onus of proof and severjty of misconduct will be
relatable to the office one is holding. Misconduct may
relate to graver acts, deeds and omissions while G
misbehaviour may relate to the standards expected to be
maintained by the holder of the constitutional office.
Thus, misbehaviour/misconduct could be used
interchangeably in certain circumstances while in other
H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A they may have to be understood as clearly
distinguishable. [para 48] [715-A-C]

Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of
=
India 1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 (1991) 4 SCC 699 - relied
on.
8
3.6 'Misbehaviour' may include behaviour that was
not expected of the holder of the constitutional office but
would not include 'grave misconduct' or 'proved
misbehaviour'. This distinction has to be kept in mind by
C this Court where the constitutional mandate refers to
'misbehaviour' which is an expression of very wide
magnitude. This term must be construed very liberally so
as to bring within its ambit the behaviour of the
Chairman/Member of the Commission which, as per
D settled norms, was not expected of him/her. The
expression 'misbehaviour' generally refers to a conduct
which might erode the faith and confidence of the public
at large in such constitutional office. Where the facts
supported by record point a finger at the Chairman/
E Member of the Commission with some certainty, it may
amount to misbehav!our in the given facts and
circumstances of a case. [para 48 and 86] [715-0-E]

Reference No. ·J of 2003 - referred to.

F 4.1 Article of Charge 1

It is alleged that the qualifications, experience and
stature of the Chairman and Members (respondents 1,8
and 9) were not of the required standard for appointment
G to their respective constitutional offices and their
appointments were made with a view to ensure that they
would further the objectives of the political party, then in
power; and thus, by conniving in the subversion of the
Constitution, they are guilty of misbehaviour under Article
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC 661

317(1) of the Constitution. It needs to be noticed that the A
words 'by conniving in the subversion of the
Constitution' are introduced in the draft charges which,
of course, stand approved by this Court. In any case, this
is only an explanatory line and does not change the
content and meaning of this article of charge, as stated B
in the Presidential Reference. [para 50 and 51] [716-E-G)

4.2 Appointment to the offices of Chairman and
Members of the Commission are made by the Governor
of the State in terms of Article 316 of the Constitution.
Under the proviso to Article 316(1 ), one half of the C
members of the Commission shall be persons who, at the
dates of their respective appointments, have held an
office either under the Government of India or under the
Government of a State for at least 10 years; these
members are termed as 'Official Members'. The remaining D
half of the 'Non-official Members' of the Commission can
be appointed by the Governor in accordance with law. 'In
accordance with law' means that the appointments are to
be made on the recommendation of the State
Government, as the Governor has to act on the advice of E
the Council of Ministers. The provisions of Article 316 do
not lay down any qualification, educational or otherwise,
for appointment to the Commission as Chairman/Member.
Even for the Official Members no specific academic
qualification has been provided . Thus, there is no F
constitutio.n al requirement of any particular ac~demic
qualification for appointment as Official/Non-official
Member of the Commission. Therefore, it cannot be held
that the respondents are guilty of misbehaviour and can
be removed from their office in terms of Article 317(1) of G
the Constitution nor can it be said that the need to have
50% from the service category is of such paramount
importance to the composition of the Commission that
the breach of it, at any particular point of time, would
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A defeat the very object of constituting the Commission.
[para 51] [716-H; 717-A-H]

*Jai Sh ankar Prasad v. State of Bihar 1993 (2)
SCR 517 = (1993) 2 SCC 597 -referred to.

B Re: Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman Bihar PSC 2000
( 2 ) SCR 688 = (2000) 4 SCC 309; lnderpreet Singh
Kahlon v. State of Punjab 2006 (1 ) Sup pl. SCR 772 = (2006)
11 sec 356 - referred to.

c 4.3 In the instant case, the Chairman was a private
practitioner holding a BAMS degree. He was from the
Non-official category and, as such, the experience of ten
years as Government appointee would not apply to him.
Similar is the case with regard to respondent No. 8, a
0 teacher. Respondent No.9, who has been appointed to
the Commission as Official Member, possessed ten· years
experience of holding Government office. In the case of
an Official Member, it is nowhere spelt out as to which
cadre in the official hierarchy, he should have experience
E of 10 years. In these circumstances, the Government has
failed to prove Charge 1 and it is held , that the three
respondents, namely, the Chairman and two Members,
are not guilty of any misbehaviour as contemplated
u·nder Article 317(1) on this count. [para 54] [720-G-H; 721-
F A-D]
4 .4 Desirability, if any, of providing specific
qualification or experience for appointment as Chairman/
Members of the Commission is a function of Parliament.
The guidelines or parameters, if any, including that of
G stature, if required to be specified are for the appropriate
Government to frame. It will not be in consonance with
the constitutional scheme that this Court should venture
into reading any specific qualifications into Article 316 or
provide any specific guidelines controlling the academic
H qualification, experience and stature of an individual who
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 663

is proposed to be appointed to this coveted office. A
However, this Court still feels constrained to observe that
this is a matter which needs the attention of
Parliamentarians and quarters concerned in the
Governments. One of the factors, which has persuaded
this Court to make this observation, is the number of B
cases which have been refer..-ed to this Court by the
President of India in terms of Article 317(1) of the
Constitution in recent years. A large number of inquiries
are pending before t~is Court which itself reflects that all
is not well with the functioning of the Commissions. [para c
53] [719-H; 720-A-0]

5.1 Article of Charge 2 is simpliciter relating to
improper selection of one 'PS' for the post of Drug
Inspector for. which he was recommended at serial
number 1 and was, subsequently, appointed by the D
Government. The approved article of charge may not
spell out every minute detail of the improper selection ·
but, in substance and keeping in view the dignity of the
office of the Com.mission, it would be sufficient if a
serious suspicion is cast on the process of selection E
which is attributable to and/or is the result of commission
or omission of the members of the Selection Committee.
[para 55 and 57] [722-G-H]

5.2 The State Government had advertised various . F
posts including two posts of Drug Inspectors with the
essential qualification and experience for the same. The
qualifications could not be relaxed at the discretion of the ·
Commission. 'PS' submitted his application dated
9.9.2004, after the last date, i.e., 3.9.2004. However, G
respondent No.5 initialled the application with the date as
3rd September, 2004. This, obviously, means that the
endorsement by respondent No. 5 on the application was
ante-dated to the actual date of receipt of the application.
H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A This application having been received after the
prescribed last date ought to have been rejected at the
very threshold . Further, in column No.12 of the
application, the applicant had not stated that he had any
experience of teaching on regular and/or voluntary basis.
B However, he had annexed to the application copies of
two experience certificates from two institutions situate
in two states, which indicated that he was shown to have
worked at two places during the same period. A
complaint was received making a specific allegation that
c the experience certificate furnished by 'PS' was bogus.
Despite these -defects, the application was processed.
Further, despite the fact that there were more competent
and meritorious candidates available, he was selected
and placed at serial No.1. In response to the complaint,
a note was put up to state that neither the complainant
0
nor 'PS' was a candidate for the post and, therefore, no
action was required to be taken . It was put up for
consideration of a Member of the Commission, who
approved its filing and then it was also signed by the
Chairman of the Commission. It needs to be noticed that
E this process adopted by the Commission and,
partic.ularly, by its Member and Chairman was not in
consonance with the known canons of administrative
jurisprudence. Despite the complaint, the results were
approved by the Chairman and Members of the
F Commission. The private respondents had signed those
minutes and forwarded the names to the Government.
Such conduct of the Chairman and the Members of the
Commission not only shows omissions and
commissions on their part but administrative lapses as
G well. This resulted in providing employme_nt to an
undeserving candidate at the cost of more meritOrious
candidates. [para 5.7 ,59 and 61] [725 ~F~H; 726~0]

5.3 Definite documenta,.Y and oral evidence had been.
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC 665

produced on record to show that the certificate annexed A
with the application of ' PS' was not genuine. It is,
therefore, clear that he did not possess the requisite
experience in terms ·of the advertisement. Besides, PW-
20, in his affidavit, has specifically stated that experts,
invited by the. Commission for the selection, were not 8
provided the original record despite demand. Thus, the
members of the Selection Committee, namely, the
respondents, obviously favoured the selection of 'PS'.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
conduct of the Chairman and the ·Members of the c
Commission , in processing the application of 'PS',
endorsing and aoproving his name for the interview,
selecting him and finally recommending his name for
appointment to the post of Drug Inspector, does not meet
the standards of behaviour, integrity and rectitude 0
required to be maintained by the office they were holding.
Thus, their behaviour with respect to this article of charge
would certainly fall within the ambit of misbehaviour
justifying their removal from office. [para 62, 63, 65 and
66] [727-B-E; 731-C-E]

6.1 In terms of Charge 3, the Chairman and the
Members of the Commission, in spite of directions of the
High Court, refused to cooperate in the investigation
carried out by the State Vigilance Bureau and
intentionally did not supply the documents requested in F
furtherance to the complaints received by the authorities
in relation to selections made by the Commission.
Approved article of charge 5, 8 and 9 are explanatory to
or extension/repetitive of Article 3. The cumuiative
reading of these articles of charge shows that emphasis G
is on non-cooperation of the Chairman and the Members
of the Commission in not furnishing the records, when it
was demanded by the investigating agencies. Further,
there has been an abuse of office of the Chairman and
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R

A Members of the Commission by withholding the material
records , passing resolutions contrary to law, filing
incorrect replies in judicial proceedings and lastly the
manipulation and interpolations in regard to answer _
sheets of the selected/non-selected candidates. [para 67•
B 69] [731-G-H; 732-A-8; 733-8-E]
6.2 It is not in dispute that the Government as well
as the Commission had received various complaints in
regard to the process of selection as well as the
selections themselves, made by the Chairman and
C Members of the Commission to various appointments in
the State services. In furtherance to these complaints and
the complaint made regarding appointment of 'PS' to the
post of Drug Inspector, five different vigilance enquiries
and two different FIRs were registered, primarily, on the
0 ground that the Commission had adopted unfair method
of selection. It was also stated that there has been
interpolation and manipulation of marks in the answer
sheets of the selected as well as non-selected
candidates·. Despite repeated demands, complete records
E were not given to the investigating agencies. Instead, the
respondents opted to file a writ petition, through the
Commission, wherein the High Court clearly observed
that the Commission could not claim immunity from
providing records , particularly, when the investigations
F were in furtherance to the complaints of corruption
against its office holders. This Court declined• to interfere
with the orders and observations of the High Court,
which inter se the parties, have attained finality. It is
impermissible to examine an order passed by the High
G Court or the Supreme Court which has attained finality
inter-se the parties .that too in a collateral proceeding.
This will be opposed to the doctrine, 'estoppel per rem
judicatam'. [para 70 ·a nd 75] [734-0-G; 735-8; 741-A-B]

H

I
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC 667

*Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 161 A
- referred to.

6.3 The other phase of non-cooperation appears to
be when, during the period 15.12.2005 to 4.1 .2007, all the
private respondents passed four different resolutions
B
declining to hand over the records to the investigating
authorities. The stand taken was that the Commission
was a constitutional body and its record could not be
made available to the investigating agencies. A bare
reading of the resolutions, except resolution dated
4.1.2007, clearly shows that there was non-application of C
mind. The alleged claim of privilege did not find mention
in them and the orders of the c.ourts including the
highest Court of the land were ignored. The High Court
clearly held that the claim of privilege for non-production
of documents with reference to ss.123 and 124 of the o·
Evidence Act, 1872 was not sustainable or justified. It
further held that the provisions of s.93 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 were rightly invoked as there
was sufficient material on record to justify the issuance
of search warrant u/s 93(1 )(a) of the Code of Criminal E
Procedure and that the State had the right to get the
records from the Commission for the purpos~ of
investigation. Despite such unambiguous and clear
directions of the High Court, the Commission, acting
through the private respondents failed to hand over the F
records, and for a very considerable time investigations
were delayed and the guilty could not be brought to
book. (para 74] [738-G-H; 739-8-H]

6.4 The collective reading of the evidence along with G
documents which have been placed on record
establishes two facts: (1) That there was definite non-
cooperation on the part of the Chairman/Members of the
Commission in furnishing record and documents to the

H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010]14 (AODL.) S.C.R.

A investigating agencies; and (2) This attitude of the private
respondents as well as the claim of privilege lacks bona
fides, much less protects the constitutional stature of the
Commission, and was, primarily, intended to withhold the
records from the Investigating Agencies to cover up the
8 misdeeds, irregularities and illegalities. In the name of the
constitutional authority, the Chairman and the Members
of the Commission certainly violated the expected
standards of behaviour. [para 76, 81 and 87] [741-C-E;
7 45-C ; 7 49-H]
c 7.1 The record of the judicial proceedings, which has
been · produced before this Court has not caused any
prejudice to the private respondents. First, they had full
opportunity of defending themselves in the inquiry and
second, they were parties in the proceedings before the
D High Court. The records, along with affidavit including the
statements recorded by the Investigating Officer .u/s 161
CrPC, can be taken note of in ·this inquiry. Of course,
reference to these proceedings is limited to the purpose
of examining the veracity of the evidence produced by
E the State in support of approved articles of charge other
than charges 6 and 7 which are beyond the scope of
. Presidential Reference. This Court certainly, is not
expressing any view whether, on the basis of these
statements, private respondents are even prima facie
F guilty of any offence in relation to those two charges.
[para 83] [746-G-H; 747-A-B]

. 7.2 This Court, by order dated 22-4-2009 granted
liberty to the Chairman and the Members of the
Commission to rebut the evidence led against them, but
G they maintained silence in this behalf, and chose to lead
no evidence. It was expected of the respondents to
render some explanation in their defence in respect of the
allegations stated in the Presidential Reference and/or in
the articles of charge approved by this Court. It .is not that
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN , HPSC 669

this Court is drawing any adverse inference against the A
respondents for not leading evidence during the enquiry,
but certainly it is a relevant consideration. The replies filed
on behalf of these respondents have vaguely denied the
articles and have attempted to· justify the acts of
omissions and commissions on the ground that they 8
were in bona fide exercise of power vested in them as
Chairman and Members of the Commission . Such
explanation ex facie is unsatisfactory. [para 84] [747-G-H;
748-A]

8.1 The instances narrated clearly show that the C
expected standards of performance and functions have
clearly been infringed by the private respondents.
Objectivity has been the victim in the process of selection
as a result of the callous attitude adopted by the private
respondents. In view of the settled position of law, where 0
instances of non-disclosure of likelihood of the child of
a Member appearing for the civil services examination
and a Member slapping the Chairperson of the
Commission have been considered as misbehaviour
within the meaning of Article ·317 (1), then certainly, the E
present case discloses misbehaviour of graver nature.
[para 85] [7 48-8-C]

8.2 On a holistic view of the matter, it is apparent that
irregularities and acts of irresponsibility committed by th~ . F
private respondents delineate their misbehaviour in terms
of Article 317(1) of the Constitution as it certainly lowers
the dignity of the Commission. The private respondents
were certainly in a position to prevent most of the events
which have occurred in giving rise to the Presidential
Reference and have tarnished the image of the G
Commission . The maxim, 'Qui non prohibit quod
prohibere potest facere videtur' would alter the equities
against the private respondents. Absolute integrity and
impartiality is required to be exercised by the Chairman
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL. ) S.C.R.

A and the Members of the Commission to maintain the
dignity of their office. The Commission has been
entrusted with the task of selecting candidates to various
posts under the Government and, therefore, the function
of the Commission is of great importance. [para 86] [748-
8 E-H; 749-A-B]

8.3 Resultantly, it is held that: (1) the State has failed
to prove, even on the rule of reasonable preponderance
of probabilities, Charge 1 of the articles of charge by
leading any cog~nt evidence or on any legal principles;
C (2) Charges 6 and 7 of the approved articles of charge are
beyond the scope of Presidential Reference and,
therefore, they were not required t~ be examined; (3)
Upon holding. inquiry in accordance with the procedure
prescribed, this Court returns the finding that private
D respondents, namely, 'MSS', 'SS' and 'RK', who are
Chairman/Members of the Commission (under
suspension) have failed to maintain the required
standards of integrity and rectitude in performance of
their constitutional duties, expected to be maintained by
E the holder of such coveted office. Therefore, approved
articles of charge 2 to 5, 8 and 9 stand established. As
such, the private respondents are guilty of misbehaviour
on these counts. Thus, there exist justifiable grounds for
removal of the private respondents from their respective
F offices in terms of Article 317 (1) of the Constitution. [para
88·89] [750-A-G]
Case Law Reference:
2000 (2) SCR 688 relied on para 2
G (1968) 3 All ER 304 referred to para 5
[1983] 3 SCR 639 relied on para 25
2007 (7) SCR 116 referred to Para 29
H 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 relied on para 30
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN , HPSC 671

[2009] 12 SCR 601 relied on para 14 and 31 A
(2008) 2 sec 161 referred to Para 72
Under Articles 317(1) of the Constitution of India.

P.N. Misra, Hawa Singh Hooda, AG., Haryana . Manjit a
Singh, Haryana, Kamal Mohan Gupta and Tarjit Singh for the
Petitioner.

Shanti Bhushan, Sidhartah Luthra, S.W.A. Qadri, Indira
Sawhney, Saima Bakshi, Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad , D.S. C
Chauhan, Rajinder Juneja, Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Sanjai
Kumar Pathak, Hitender Nath Rath. Arundhati Katju, Amit
Sharma, Supriya, B.S. Rajesh and R. Chandrachud for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 0
SWATANTER KUMAR, J . 1. Historically, the constituent
assembly debates reflect the desire of the framers of the
Constitution to ensure complete independence, integrity and
fairness in the country's administration. Besides discernibly E
stating the privileges, functions and responsibilities of the three
paramount" ·pillars of the Indian Constitution, i.e. legislature,
executive and judiciary, the Constitution also provided three
instruments to ensure proper checks and balances in the
functioning of the Government. These organs are the Supreme
Court to ensure proper administration of justice, the Auditor F
General to maintain the purity of the country's finances,
expenditure and collection of taxes and lastly, the Federal
Public Service Commission to maintain the purity and integrity
of the country's services.
G
2. The Constitution, in Part XIV, provides for establishment
of the Union and State Public Service Commissions with the
primary object of providing equal opportunity to the people of
India in matters relating to appointment. Establishment of these
H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL. ) S.C.R.

A Commissions is one of the important facets of the constitutional
scheme. Public Service Commissions are expected to adopt
a fair and judicious process of selection to ensure that
deserving and meritorious candidates are inducted to the
services of the State. This should not only be done but also
B appear to have been done. In re, Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav,
Chairman Bihar PSC [(2000) 4 SCC 309), this Court observed
as follows:

"1 . Founding Fathers of the Indian Constitution relying upon
the experience in other countries wherever democratic
c institutions exist, intended to secure an efficient civil
service. This is the genesis for setting up autonomous and
.., independent bodies like the Public Service Commission
at the center and in the States . The values of
independence, impartiality and integrity are the basic
D determinants of the constitutional conception of Public
Service Commissions and their role and functions."

3. A clear distinction has been drawn by the framers
between service under the Centre or the States and services
E in the institutions which are creations of the Constitution itself.
Article 315 of the Constitution commands that there shall be a
Union Public Service Commission for the Centre and State
Public Service Commissions tor the respective States. This is
not, in any manner, linked with the All India Services
F contemplated under Article 312 of the Constitution to which, in
fact, the selections are to be made by the Commission. The
fact that the Constitution itself has not introduced any element
of inter-dependence between the two, undoubtedly, points to
the cause of Commission being free from any influence or
G limitation. The constitutional scheme contained in Articles 315
to 320 noticeably demonstrates not only the complete
independence of the Public Service Commissions in discharge
of their functions, but also ensures complete security and
protection of tenure to its Chairman/ Members . A very
cumbersome process has been provided by the Constitution
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN , HPSC 673
[SWATANTER KUMAR. J .]
for the removal of the Chairman and Members of the A
Commission. This constitutional intent of ensuring ~utonomy is
underscored by the fact that it is only where the Governor of
the State makes a reference to the President of India, stating
grounds of misbehaviour of Chairman/Member of the State
Commission that the President may remove such a Chairman/ B
Member but only after the Supreme Court of India, on . a
reference by the President under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution, reports that the Chairman/Member ought to be
removed on the ground of misbehaviour. Thus, the immunities
enjoyed by the Chairman and Members of the Commission c
under the Constitution are far greater and cannot be impinged
upon by the normal procedure of service law for dismissal of a
civil servant under the Civil Services Rules for an alleged
misconduct.

4. Higher the public office, greater is the responsibility. The D
adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of functions of
the Commission can result in defects not only in the process
of selection but also in the appointments to the public offices
which, in turn , will affect effectiveness of administration of State.
Most of the democratic countries in the world have set up E
Public Services Commissions to make the matter of
appointments free from nepotism and political patronage. For
instance the Conseil d'Etat in France, which is composed of
the cream of the French Civil Service, has acquired
considerable veneration for its capacity to police intelligently the F
complex administration of the modern state. Justice J.C. Shah
in his report on the excesses of the Emergency, struck by the
"unhealthy factors governing the relationship between ministers
and civil servants", recommended the adoption of droit
-administratif of the French model by the Government. He G
observed that the commitment of a public functionary should be
to the duties of his office, their due performance with an
emphasis on their ethical content and not to the ideologies,
political or otherwise of the politicians, who administer the
affairs of the State. H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010}14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 5. Great powers are vested in the Commission and
therefore, it must ensure that there is no abuse of such powers.
The principles of public accountability and transparency in the
functioning of an institution are essential for its proper
governance. The necessity of sustenance of public confidence
B in the functioning of the Commission may be compared to the
functions of judiciary in administration of justice which was spelt
out by Lord Denning in Metropolitan Properties Co. vs. Lannon
(1968) 3 All ER 304) in following words:

"Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is
c destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking:
'The Judge was biased ."'

6. The conduct of the Chairman and Members of the
Commission , in discharge of their duties, has to be above
D board and beyond censure. The credibility of the institution of
Public Service Commission is founded upon faith of the
common man on its proper functioning . Constant allegations of
corruption and promotion of family interests at the cost of
national interest resulting in invocation of constitutional
E mechanism for the removal of Chairman/Members of the
Commission erode public confidence in the Commission. Profs.
Brown and Garner's observation in their treatise French
Administrative Law, 3rd ed. (1983) in this regard can be usefully
referred to . They said "the standard of behaviour of an
F administration depends in the last resort upon the quality and
traditions of the public officials who compose it rather than upon
such sanctions as may be exercised through a system of
judicial .control." Regrettably, the present case is one of many
References made to this Court where serious allegations afld
G imputations have been made against the Chairman and
Members of the Commission in regard to performance of their
constitutional duties . The omissions and commissions
amounting to misbehaviour, allegedly committed by the
Chairman/Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission
have led to the Presidential Reference dated 31st July, 2008
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 675
'[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
in exercise of the powers vested in the President under Article A
317 of the Constitution of India to this Court.

FACTS

7. The facts, as gleaned from the reference, are as under:
8
The Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, 'the
Commission') was constituted by the Governor of State of
Haryana in exercise of the powers vested under Article 316 of
the Constitution by appointing its. Chairman and Members, on
different dates, during the period 7th June, 1998 to 4th May, C
2002 . The details of the appointees including date of
appointment and their credentials are as on page 676:

8. The election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly was
due in February, 2005 and the model code of conduct was
0
imposed by the competent authority on 17th December, 2004.
The Government started taking steps for appointing the
Chairman/Members of the Commission just before the
imposition of the model code of conduct and appointed the
Chairman and Members of the Commission, official/non~official ,
between 5th July, 2004 and 15th December, 2004. Four E
Members were appointed to the Commission on 5th July, 2004,
while Shri Mehar Singh Saini, erstwhile Member of the
Commission, was appointed as Chairman of the Commission
on 1st December, 2004 and on the same date wife of Dr. K.C.
Bangar, erstwhile Chairman of the Commission, was appointed F
as Member of the Commission. Thus, by 15th December,
2004, the Commission came to be reconstituted. Constitution
of th~ Commission with the dates of retirements and
credentials of its Chairman and Members respectively are as
. follows on page 678: G

9. During its tenure, the Commission had made selections
and recommended candidates for appointment to various posts
in different cadres of the State. Subsequently, it came to the
notice of the Government that various irregularities and H
'676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A --illegalities, such as acts of favouritism, discrimination and
violation of rules/regulations had been committed by the
Commission in the process of selection made by them. After
conducting preliminary enquiries, the Government claims to
have initiated vigilance enquiries as well as First Information
8 Reports were registered for the alleged irregularities,
illegalities and acts of commissions and omissions by the
Chairman and Members of the Commission. This resulted in
the Chief Secretary, Government of+iaryana, writing a letter
dated 18th December, 2006, to the Secretary to the Governor
of Haryana, requesting him to refer the matter to the President
c of India at the earliest for removal of the Chairman ~nd
Members of the Commission in terms of Article 317(1) of the
Constitution of India. It was averred that the Chairman and
Members of the Commission were guilty of misbehaviour, as
mentioned under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. It was also
D averred that they do not possess requisite qualification,
experience and had been appointed to the coveted offices only
to achieve political ends. In this letter, detailed facts were given
about the qualifications, experience and credentials of the
Chairman and Members of the Commission with definite
E emphasis on the fact that they had made appointments contrary
to the rules and with favouritism. Their conduct, in making
selection to different posts was an exercise in subversion of
the constitutional protections rather than sub-serving, the
interest of the Constitution.
F
10. After receiving this Reference, the Governor of
Haryana, vide letter dated 16th January. 2007, forwarded it to
the President of India with supporting documents and records
for consideration. The President, after examining the records,
G referred the matter to t!1is Court under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution for inquiry and report, as to whether the existing
Chairman and Members of the Commission ought to be
removed from the office on the alleged grounds of
misbehaviour.
H 11 . In order to fully appreciate the subject matter of the
Sl. Name of Qualifica- Whether Past Date of Date of Date of
No. the Chair- tion official creden- Appoin- normal prema- z
man/ or non- tials tment retire- ture ;;u
Member official ment/ resig-
m
comple- nation s:
m
tion of I
term I )>
;;u
1. Dr. Krishan Ph.D. Non- Vice 02-08-2000 1-08-2006 1.12.2004 en
Chander official Chancellor, z
Sanger, G)
G.J.
J:
(Chairman) University I
en
)>
2. Sh. Narender, BA (LLB) Non- Journalist 17.06.1998 16.06.2004 - z
Singh (Member) Official
(")
I
3. Sh. Dayal Singh, B.Sc. Official G.M. 03.07.1998 18.07.1998 - )>
(Member) Eng g. Industries,
Haryana
. s:;:u
)>
z
4. Sh. Jagdish Rai, MA. Official Lecturer 18.07.1998 17.07.2004 - I
(Member) "'U
en
5. Sh. Mahender BA (LLB) Official Teacher 28.02.2000 27.02.2006 07.12.2004 0
Singh Shastri, Shastri "
(Member) · O.T. . en
i -..1
-..1
O'l
-...j
6. Sh. Mehar Singh BAMS Non- Non- 07.07.2000 06.07.2006 1.12.2004 (X)

Saini (Member) Official Practitioner

7. Sh. Gulshan LLB Non- Social 04.04.2001 09.08.2004 - (/)
c
Bhardwaj official Activist "tt
(Member) :::0
m
~
8. Sh. S.K. Gupta, B.A. Non- - 04.04.2001 03.04.2007 05.07.2004 m
()
(Member) official
0
c
9. Sh. Pardeep B.A. Non- Social 04.05.2002 03.05.2008 05.07.2004 :::0
--i
Chaudhary, official Activist :::0
(Member) m
"U
'------ ~-----------·-··--····--- ~-- --------- -- ----- ---- 0
:::0
-f
(/)

'i\3
0
~

..9
~

~

~
0
0

-
r
( /)
()
;:u
Sl. Name of Qualifica- Whether Past Date of Date of
No. the Chair.: tion official creden- Appoin- normal z
man/ or non- ti~ls tment retire- ::::0
m
Member official mentl
s:
m
I
1. Sh. Mehar Singh BAMS Non-Official Private Practitioner 01 .12.2004 30.11.2010 (i5)>
~::::0
Saini (Chairman) · I
i
~en
)>Z
2. Sh. Dungar Ram, MA (Eng.) Official Lecturer Govt. National 5.7.2004 9.6.2009 zG1
~I
(Member) College, Sirsa men
::::0)>
3. Sh.Chatter Singh, BE (Elect.) Official District Transport 5.7.2004 4.7.2010 ;;s;::z
c _-
(Member) Officer
S:::o
4. Sh.Yudhvir Singh, BA Non-official District Marketing 5.7.2004 4.7.2010 ~~
(Member) Enforcement Officer c....;;o
..:......s:::
)>
5. Sh. Satbir Singh, BA (Hons) Non-official Advocate 5.7.2004 4.7.2010 z
Advocate LLB I
(Member) '"U
en
()
6. Sh.Om Prakash BA LLB Official District Attorney 10.8.2004 9.8.2010
(Member) (j)
-..J
- - <D
(j)
7. Dr. Ranbir Singh B.Sc. Non-official Associate Professor 10.8.2004 9.8.2010 CX>
0
Hooda (Member) (Agronomy, Haryana, Agriculture
(j)
M.Sc. University c
(Agronomy, -o
::::0
Ph.d, LLB m
s:
m
8. Mrs.Santosh M.Sc. B.Ed. Non-official School Teacher 1.12.2004 30.11 .2010 ()
Singh (Member) 0
W/0 Dr. K.C.
c
Sanger (Ex- ~
Chairman) :::0
m
"U
9. Sh.Ram Kumar f\AA. Official Field Assistant in 15.12.2004 14.12.2010 0
:::0
Kashyap, (Econom ics) ESA Department ~
(j)
(Member) LLB.
'i\3
~

0
......
0
.._.
......
~

);
0
0
r
(j)
()
:::0
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HpSC 681
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
present inquiry, it will be appropriate to reproduce the Reference A
dated 31st July, 2008 made by the President of India to this
Court:
"WHEREAS the Governor of Haryana, vide letter
dated 16th January, 2007 together with a reference from
B
the Government.of Haryana, has set out the grounds for the
removal of the existing Chairman and Members of the
Haryana Public Service Commission under Article 317(1)
~:m grounds of misbehaviour (A copy of the letter dated
16:1.2007 along with the copy of reference with an nexures
mentioned therein is enclosed), ·C
AND WHEREAS from the reference prepared by the
Government of Haryana it appears that there were serious
irregularities in the appointments made to the posts of
Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service D
Commission, which were made without due regard their to
qualifications, experience, status and accomplishments,
. required for appointment to the said constitutional posts,
AND WHEREAS from the reference prepared by the
Government of Haryana it appears that S/Shri Mehar Singh E
Saini, Dungar Ram, O.P. Bishnoi -and Chattar Singh, as
members of the Selection Committee, recommended the
name of Shri Pradeep Sangwan for the post of Drug
Inspector on the basis of a bogus certificate for which an
investigation was conducted by the State Vigilance Bureau, F
Chandigarh and subsequently an FIR was registered
against these persons for various offences under the Indian
Penal Code and .the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
anq for which .these persons were arrested and challan has
already been· filed in the Trial Court, G

AND WHEREAS from the reference prepared by the
Government of Haryana it appears that Shri Mehar Singh
Saini, Chairman and S/Shri Dungar Ram, Chattar Singh,
Yudhvir Singh, Satbir Singh, Om Prakash Bishnoi, Ranbir
H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADOL) S .C.R_·.

A Singh Hooda, R.K. Kashyap and Smt. Santosh Singh as
Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission
refused to co-operate in the investigation being carried out
by the State Vigilance Bureau in spite of the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in complaints
·s regarding selections made by the Commission,
AND WHEREAS I am satisfied from the above
referred material before me that it is necessary that the said
allegations be inquired into .
. .
c Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
upon me by clause (1) of the Article 317 of the Constitution,
I, Pratibha Devisingh Patil, President of India, do hereby
refer to the Supreme Court of India for enquiry and report
as to whether the existing Chairman and Members of the
0 Haryana Public Service Commission, ought, on the grounds
of misbehaviour, be removed from the office of the
Chairman and Members of the Commission."
12. It is evident from the above-mentioned Reference that
the Chairman as well as all the eight Members are alleged to
E have conducted themselves in a manner, which amounts to
misbehaviour within the meaning of Article 317(1) and, thus, are
liable to be removed from their office. We may notice from the
second tabulated statement afore-referred that out of the nine
Members, six have already vacated their office as their term of
F appointment to the Commission has ended by efflux of time.
Thus, out of the nine appointed Members, presently only three
Members are holding the office of the Chairman/Members in
the Commission. However, vide order dated 9th August, 2008,
passed by the Governor of State of Haryana, the Chairman and
G all the Members of the Commission were placed under
suspension. While Mr. Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, Mrs.
Santosh Singh and Mr. Ram Kumar Kashyap, Members of the
Commission continued to be Chairman and Members of the
Commission under suspension respectively till date, there other
H Members remained under suspension till expiry of their
•,
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 683
. {SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
respective terms. A
13. Amongst other complaints, a complaint in the matter of
the appointment of Pradeep Sangwan as Drug Inspector was
also r~·ceived and inquiry is stated to have,been conducted by
the State Vigilance Bureau vide Enquiry No.5 dated 16th May,
B
2005, Chandigarh and subsequently FIR No.15 dated 8th August,
2005 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 1208 lPG and Section
13(1)(c) & (d) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
registered at Police Station SVB, Rohtak. In the vigilance inquiry,
Dr. K.C. Bangar, the then Chairman, Shri Mehar Singh Saini,
former Member and present Chairman, Shri Dungar Ram, Shri C
Chattar Singh and Shri Om Prakash Bishnoi, Members of the
Commission , were founq to be involved in criminal conspiracy
for selection of Pradeep Sangwan. With respect to other
complaints, which have been received in relation to Various
selections, made by the Commission in respect of various civil D
posts in the State Government, the State Vigilance Bureau
initiated different enquiries being Enquiry No.1 dated 16th May,
2005, Enquiry No.3 dated 21st April , 2005 and Enquiry No.4
dated 25th April , 2005. Enquiry Nos.1 and 3, related to
allegations of corruption and irregularities in recommending E
candidates for appointment to different posts for the period 2000
to 2004, led to registration of FIR No.20 dated 18th October,
·'2005 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC, read with
Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. For the investigations and enquiries above-referred, F
records were required by the investigating agencies and they '

wrote various letters to the authorities of the Commission to hand
over the same for expeditious completion of inquiry. However,
it is the case of the Government and the investigating agencies
that the Commission did not cooperate at all and the records, G
despite repeated demands, had not been handed over to them.
As a result of non-cooperation by the Chairman and Members
of the Commission, proceedings in the Court were initiated in
which, ultimately, the High Court of Punjab and. Haryana in
Haryana Public Service Commission v. State of Haryana (Writ H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R.

A Petition no.12593 of 2005) [(2005)141 PLR 486]. passed an
order dated 12th August, 2005 making certain observations
against the conduct of the Commission , its Chairman and
Members. We will be referring to this order in some detail shortly.
Against this order of the High Court, Special Leave Petition was
s preferred before this Court, which came to be dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 19th. September, 2005. Separate
proceedings were also initiated by the Member(s) of the
Commission in their own right, who had prayed for permission
to file Special Leave Petition, against the order of the High Court
c but the same was also declined by this Court vide order dated
28th October, 2005.
14. We have already mentioned that it is the case of the
State Government that after noticing the irregularities and
favouritism on a mass scale and on suspicion of serious charges
D of corruption .against the Chairman and Members of the
Commission,.the Governor of Haryana had passed an order
dated 9th August, 2008 suspending the Chairman and the
Members of the Commission. The validity and legality of this
order of suspension was questioned by the affected Chairman
E and Members of the Commission by filing a petition under Article
32 of the Constitution before this Court, which came to be
dismissed by a detailed order dated 7th August, 2009 reported
as Ram Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India [(2009) 9 SCC 378].
The relevant extract of the order reads as under:
F "16. It is very clear that since the Public Service
Commissions ..are a constitutional creation, the principles
of service law that are ordinarily applicable in instances of
dismissals of government employees cannot be extended
to the proceedings for the removal and ·suspension of the
G 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 under Article 317(2) of the Constitution and the
H impugned notification dated 09.08.2008 are valid and not
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC . 685
[SWATANTER KUMAR , J .]
liable to be quashed . The writ petitions are dismissed." A
15. In view of the order of this Court, the order of suspension
· passed against the Chairman/Members of the Commission, the
respondents herein, attained finality.
16. As a result of various enquiries being conducted by the B
Vigilance Bureau of State of Haryana and other investigating
agencies in furtherance to FIR Nos.15 and 20 of 2005 dated
8th August, 2005 and 20th October, 2005 respectively, various
documents/correspondence and other evidence cam~ to light
which, according to the State, pointed towards the involvement c
of the Chairman and Members of ·the Commission in mal
practices, favoritism and even to some extent corruption in the
functiol)1ng of the Commission in making selections and
recommending names to the State Government for appointment"
to various posts. These documents, along with certain additional 0
charges, were placed on record before this Court. Only three
articles of charge were stated in the Presidential Reference.
However, during the pendency of the matter before the Court
and because of subsequent events the State Government filed .
additional articles of charge. Six charges were sought to be E
added to the charge-sheet, in all bringing the total to nine. From
the record , it appears that the matter was heard at some length
and on 22nd April, 2009, a Bench of this Court passed the
following order:

"Heard Mr. Shanti Shushan, learned senior counsel F
appearing for the Chairman of the Haryana Public Service
Commission, and also Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior
counsel appearing for the State of Haryana.
Mr. Shanti Shushan, learned senior counsel has
objected to the draft charges Nos.1, 4, 7 and 8. The G
objections were regarding the very appointment of the
Chairman as one of the grounds of misbehaviour under
Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India. It was argued on
behalf of the State that the verj appointment itself requires
H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A consideration. therefore, these draft charges require to be
looked into. As regards other charges, it was alleged by
Mr. Shanti Shushan that many of the facts are not stated
either in the Presidential reference or in the Governor's letter
of reference in detail. However, State counsel replied that
s they have materials to substantiate all the charges. It is made
clear that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission
would be at liberty to raise legal objections at the time of
adducing evidence on these draft charges. Draft charges
are approved.
C The State is directed to file list of witnesses and
documents by 15th July, 2009. Post on 21st July for further
orders."
17. In light of the above order, the parties were given
opportunity to lead the evidence on all the nine articles of charge.
0
The documentary and oral evidence was led by the State and,
as many as, 31 witnesses were examined. The Chairman and
Members of the Commission did not examine any witness. It
will be useful to refer to the articles of charge which were
E approved by this Court vide its order dated 22nd April, 2009.
"1. That Shri Mehar Singh Saini is a beneficiary of
favouritism and nepotism in the matter of his
appointment as Chairman of the Haryana Public
Service Commission. His qualifications, experience,
F status and accomplishments namely that of a private
practitioner in Ayurveda (BAMS), were not of the
stature required for appointment to the Constitutional
position of Chairman of the Haryana Public Service
Commission . His appointment, after obtaining
G resignation of then Chairman, was with a view to
ensuring that he would further the objectives of the
political party then in power. By, thus, conniving in
the subversion of the constitution, he is guilty of
misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution.
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN , HPSC 687
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
2. That Sh. M.S. Saini, as a member of the selection A
committee , recommended the name of Shri
Pradeep Sangwan for selection to the post of drug
Inspector on the basis of the bogus certificate in
which the charges of criminal conspiracy and
indulgence in acts of corruption have been brought B
out against him. He has since been arrested and
released on bail and the final investigation 'report
has been placed before the criminal court for trial.
His involvement in a case of criminal co-nspiracy,
which is pending trial, constitutes misbehaviour under c
Article 317(1) of the Constitution.
3. That Shri Mehar Singh Saini refused to cooperate
in the investigation being carried out by the State
Vigilance Bureau, ins pite of the directions issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in complaints D
regarding selections made by the Commission and
his deliberate non-supply of documents needed in
the inquiry .and refusal to co-operate in the
investigations. This constitutes misbehaviour within
the meaning of Article 317(1). E
4. That ~he bare reading of the contents of the additional
d.ocuments placed on record, including inspection
reports dated 24.1.2008/1 .2.2008 and the interim
order dated 14.1.2008 , passed by the Hon'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.15,390 F
of 2002, clearly established that the acts of
manipu_lations and interpolations in answer-sheets
of favourite candidates was deliberate abuse of the
process of sele~tion by Sh. Mehar Singh Saini as
Member of Haryana Public Service Commission, G
in the ~election of 2002 for Haryana Civil Services
(Executive and Allied) Examination in the year 2002
and the same constitute an act of grave
misbehaviour, warranting the invocation of Article
317(1) of the Constitution of India, for his removal. H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 5. That the acts of omission and commission of Sh.
Mehar Singh Saini as Member of Haryana Public
Service Commission and his subsequent act and
conduct as Chairman of Haryana Public Service
Commission in making deliberate efforts to with-hold
B the material record , which was required by the
investigating agency to investigate the complaints
received by the Government regarding serious
illegalities and .irregularities committed by the
Chairman and Member of the Commission while
c making selections including the selection of 2002
for Haryana Civil Services (Executive and Allied),
again clearly establish his grave misbehaviour as ·
envisaged under Article 317(1) of the Constitution
of India, warranting his removal.
D 6. That the malicious acts of influencing his
subordinates to carry out intended manipulations to
favour desired persons in selections and
endorsement of such illegal selections as member
of the Commission by Sh . Mehar Singh Saini
E constitute an act of grave misbehaviour warranting
invocation of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India
for his removal.
7. That Sh. Mehar Singh Saini abused his public office
and showed his dubious act and conduct by
F defending the above mentioned patently illegal acts
which constitute an act of grave misbehaviour
warranting invocation of Article 317(1) of the
Constitution of India f9r his removal.

G 8. That Sh . Mehar.Singh Saini, Chairman of Haryana
Public Service Commission and S./Sh. Dungar
Ram, Chattar Singh, Yudhvir Singh, Satbir Singh,
Om Prakash Bishnoi, Ranbir Singh Hooda, Smt.
Santosh Singh and R.K. Kashyap wrongly and
unlawfully decided to file a written reply on behalf of
H
\ .
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 689
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J .]
the Haryana Public Service Commission to the A
inspection reports dated 24.1.2008/1.2.2008 vide
reply dated 25/2/2008 in CWP No.15390 of 2002,
attempting to justify the illegalities regarding the
manipulations , interpolations and forgeries
committed during the selection process of Haryana B
Civil Services (Executive & Allied), which was
finalized by the Commission in 2002.
9. That Sh. Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman of Haryana
Public Service Commission and the members S/
Sh. Dungar Ram, Chattar Singh , Yudhvir Singh, q
Satbir Singh, Om Prakash Bishnoi, Ranbir Singh
Hooda, Smt. Santosh Singh and R.K. Kashyap had
taken a decision not to hand over the record to the
investigating agency on the pretext that the State
Public Service Commission, being a constitutional D
authority, enjoys a distinct status, despite the fact
that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and
Hon'ble Apex Court were pleased to direct the
Commission to co-operate with the investigat!ng
agency. This deliberate act on their part clearly E
amounts to misbehaviour as envisaged under Article
317(1) of the Constitution of India for their removal."
18. Thus, this Court has been called upon to examine
whether the conduct of the Chairman/Members of the
F
Commission amounts to misbehaviour in light of these approved
articles of charge and the evidence produced on record, which
would justify their removal in terms of Article 317(1) of the
Constitution.
19. The challenge by Mr. Shanti Shushan, learned senior G
counsel appearing on behalf of one of the respondents in the
present Reference, to the additional charges, which have been
approved by the Court, is, primarily, on the ground that the
jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 317(1) is a limited
jurisdiction and the Court has to conduct its inquiry and record H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A its finding in the report only in relation to the articles of charge
referred to by the President in exercise of its powers under Article
317(1). Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the merit
or otherwise of the said additional articles of charge. It is his
submission that it is not an omnibus Reference. It is also
B contended that Charges 4, 6, 7 and 8 are new articles of charge
and have no link to the referred charges and as such they are
beyond the scope of Reference. Further, it is argued that there
is no evidence on record to substantiate any of the approved
articles of charge, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument
c that the Court can examine all the approved articles of charge.
Thus, it is stated that the Presidential Reference to this Court is
ex facie a case of no evidence but political vendetta alone. It
was also contended that the entire evidence produced in respect
of the allegations has not been tendered in accordance with
law. A police officer cannot prove the allegations merely by filing
0
an affidavit. Thus, it is no evidence in the eye of law. In regard
to charge 1, relating to qualification and status of the Chairman
and Members of the Commission, it is argued that this approved
article of charge itself suffers from infirmity of non-application of
min'd as no qualification or status has been prescribed under
E Article 316 of the Constitution for such appointment.
20. While refuting these arguments, Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, argued that all the
articles of charge can be gone into by this Court inasmuch as
F the charges are interlinked as well as they were duly approved
by the order of this Court dated 22nd April, 2009. According to
him, though no specific qualifications have been provided under
Article 316 of the Constitution, but keeping in view the
constitutional functions of public importance performed by the
G Commission, it is expected that persons of adequate
educational qualification, experience and proper status should
be appointed to the Commission. The respondents are alleged
to have managed their appointments to the Commission as its
Chairman and Members. In support of these submissions,
H reference has been made to the qualification of the Chairman,
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 691
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
who was a private practitioner with degree of BAMS, while some A
of the Members were graduates only. The wife of the former
Chairman of the Commission, on his exit, was immediately
appointed as a Member of the Commission; and Mehar Singh
Saini was appointed as Chairman on 1st December, 2004, the
very date on which his term as member was to expire. These 8
appointments, thus, have been made only for gaining political
mileage and to make selections on the basis of favouritism and
other extraneous considerations. According to the learned
counsel there is sufficient evidence, documentary and oral, on
record to substantiate and prove the approved articles of charge C
in accordance with law. With reference to the charge of non-
cooperation, it is contended that despite the order of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court, the course of action adopted by the
Chairman and Members of the Commission is not only
misbehaviour but is contemptuous to the extent that it violates
prudent norms of governance in accordance with law. The acts 0
of favouritism , manipulation of records and the conduct of the
Chairman and Members of the Commission are unacceptable
from constitutional functionaries and, therefore, they are liable
to be removed from their office. We may notice that the learned
counsel appearing for some of the other respondents principally E
adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Shanti Shushan, but
added greater emphasis on the contention that exercise of right
of privilege in relation to records of the Commission, being
affairs of the State, was a justifiable claim. Further, the charge
that the Chairman/Members of the Commission do not possess F
requisite qualification and experience is no charge in the eye of
law that can be attributed to the private respondents, as the
Constitution itself does not provide for any such qualification
and experience. As such, both these charges cannot, in law,
amount to misbehaviour as contemplated under Article 317(1) G
of the Constitution.
21. Before we proceed to examine the merit or otheJWise
of the contentions raised before us as well as the evidence on
each approved article of charge, reference to Article 317 of the
H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 0] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Constitution would be proper. Article 317 reads as under:
"Article 317- R~moval and suspension of member of
a Public Service Commission-(1) Subject to the
provisions of clause (3), the Chairman or any other member
of a Public Service Commission shall only be removed from
B his office by order of the President on the ground of
misbehaviour after the Supreme Court, on reference being
made to it by the President, has , on inquiry held in
accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf
under article 145, reported that the Chairman or such other
c member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to
be removed.

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

E (3) Notwithstanding af)ything in clause (1), the President
may by order remove from office the Chairman or any other
member of a Public Service Commission if the Chairman
or such other member, as the case may be,-
(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or
F
(b) engages during his term of office in any paid
employment outside the duties of his office; or
(c) is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continu~
in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body.
G
(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
H State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN , HPSC 693
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J . ]
any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise than A
as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of clause
(1 ), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour."
22. A bare reading of Article 317 shows that the
8
constitutional protection for the term of office of Chairman and
Members of the Commission is provided to ensure independent
fu.nctioning of the Commission. The working of the Commission
and its Members has to be of impeccable integrity and rectitude.
The object should be to provide the best persons from the
available candidates for appointment in the State/Central C
cadres. This has to be done by adopting a judicious, fair and
transparent method of selection, free· of influence from any
quarter.in the Government or otherwise. That is why the framers
of .the Constitution clearly distinguished appointments to the
Commission from appointments to the State Services or All India 0
Services. The Members ofthe·Commission cannot be subjected
to regular departmental enquiries and can only be removed from
their office by strictly complying with the provisions of.Article
317 of the Constitution. This·provision contemplates removal of
the Member on two different grounds. First, where a Chairman E
or Member could be removed on the ground of misbehaviour by
the President only after making a Reference to this Court and ·
where this Court has given a report, after holding inquiry in
accordance with the prescribed procedure, that the Chairman
_.or. the member ought to be removed on the grounds stated in F
that report. Second, by reason of automatic disqualification as
provided under Article 317(3) and (4) of the Constitution. The
President of India can act without any report from this Court in .
terms of Article 317 (3) and (4). Under Article 317(4), if the
Chairman or Member of the Public Service Commission G
becomes interested or concerned in any agreement or in -any
profit thereof or commits any of the stated defaultss, then such
Chairman/Member shall be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour
for the purpose of clause (1) of Article 317. Article 317 thus
provides for a complete and composite proced~re, which is to H .
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADOL.) S.C.R.

A be adopted by the President of India, before a Chairman/
Member of the Commission can be removed from his office.
Making Ref~rence to this Court under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution invokes the Reference/Advisory jurisdiction of this
Court. In the scheme of the Constitution relating to this aspect,
s it is clear that before the Reference can be made to this Court,
certain procedure is required to be satisfied. The Governor,
acting on the advice of the State Government, would request
the President for taking steps for removal of a Member in
accordance with the provisions of Article 317(1) of the
c Constitution. There is requirement of proper application of mind
by the President while making a Reference to this Court and it
is but natural that Reference to this Court would be made only
whefe'tHe President is satisfied that a prima facie case of
misbehaviour is made out.
D 23. In light of the above provisions, it is obvious that normally
this Court would follow the prescribed procedure and record its
findings only on the articles of charge referred to by;the President.
However, in some cases, the Court may take cognizance and
examine the articles of charge which are incidental/explanatory
E to the articles of charge mentioned in the Reference. In law, it
may not be possible to examine charges which are entirely
independent and unconnected with all or any of the articles of
charge stated in the Presidential Reference. There has to be
some link or inter-connection between the articles of charge
F subsequently suggested before this Court and the original
articles of charge referred by the President. The question of any
prejudice to the delinquent will not arise inasmuch as the
concerned party is given full opportunity to challenge the articles
of charge as well as the evidence led in support of charges by
G the Government, during the process of inquiry before this Court.
24. Article 317(1) requires that the inquiry held by this Court
is to .be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that
behalf under Article 145 of the Constitution. Article 145
empowers the Supreme Court to make rules, with the approval
H of the President, for regulating generally the practice and
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 695
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J .]
procedure of this Court. In turn, Article 145(1 )0) specifically A
empowers the Supreme Court to frame Rules, with the approval
of the President of India, to regulate the procedure for enquiries
referred to under clause (1) of Article 317 of the Constitution. Of
course, such rules have to be subject to any law that may be
e·nacted by the Parliament. The Supreme Court has framed the B
following rules under Part VI , Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 for conducting inquiry under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution:-
"1. On receipt by the Registrar of the order of the President
referring to the Court a case for inquiry under article 317(1) C
of the Constitution, the Registrar shall give notice to the
Chairman or Member of the Public Service Commission
concerned and to the Attorney-General for India or the
Advocate-General of the particular State to appear before
the Court on a day specified in the notice to take the 0
directions of the Court in the matter of the inquiry. A copy
of the charges preferred against him shall be furnished to
the respondent along with the notice.
2. The Court may sum'r'non such witnesses as it consider E
necessary.
3. After the hearing of the reference under article 317(1) of
the Constitution, the Registrar shall transmit to the President
the Report of the Court.
F
4. No Court-fees or process fees shall be payable in
connection with any reference dealt with by the Court under
this Order." ·

25. A plain reading of these Rules clearly shows that no
detailed procedure has been provided so far, as to how and in G
what manner the inquiry shall be coflducted and what shall be
the scope of the inquiry and the manner in which the evidence
shall be recorded. In other words, it has been left tv the discretion
of this Court to follow a procedure whic~ is in consonance with
the language of Article 317(1), read with the above Rules and H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A principles of natural justice. Inherent power of this Court is wide
enough to enunciate such a procedure, with reference to the
facts and circumstances of a given case , as Rule 6 of Order
XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules specifically provides that
nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit ·or otherwise
B affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders, as
may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse
of the process of the Court. In the Matter of Reference under .
fl.rlicle 317(1) of the Constitution of India [{1983) 4 sec 2S8]
(hereinafter referred to as 'Reference 1 of 1983J this Court,
c while dealing with this aspect, clearly stated that the Court can
appoint any officer of the Court, or direct an Additional/Sessions
Judge or any other Judge, to record evidence. Evidence, as far
as practicable, has to be recorded in accordance w ith the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and by way of filing
affidavit, wherever directed, in view of the provisions of Order
0
XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After recording of
evidence, the matter is to be placed before the Court for regular
hearing upon which , the Court is expected to make a report of
its findings on the .misbehaviour of the Chairman/Members of
the Commission.
E
26. Article 316 of the Constitution of India regulates
appointment of Chairman and Members of a Public Service
Commission. Proviso to Article 316(1) provides·that, as nearly
as may be, one half of the members of every Public Service
F Commission shall be persons who, at the dales of their
respectiv~ appointments, have held office, for at least ten years,
either under 'the Government of India or the Government of a
State. ln other words, one-half of the members ofthe. Commission
who are to be appointed by the Governqr, should have held
G 'public office' for a period of ten years prior to their appointments
and are normally terrned as 'official members'. However, it !s
not necessary for the remaining one-half of the members of the
Commission to possess such qualifications or experience for
appointment and they are termed as 'non-official members'.

H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 697
[SWATANTER KUMAR , J.]

27. The power to remove a Chairman/Member of the Public A
Service Commission has be~n vested exclusively in the
President. This power, under the scheme of the constitutional
provisions, is to be exercised by 1the President only upon report
of the Supreme Court that the conduct of the member is
tantamount to misbehavior of the kind that justifies his removal 8
from the office, except in cases specifically covered under
Clauses (3) and (4) of Article 317. Upon a Reference from the
President, the jurisdiction of the Court is, primarily, advisory
inasmuch as the Court, in its report to the President, has to record
a finding that the delinquent Chairman/Member is guilty of the c
misbehaviour complained of, which would justify his removal from
the office. The articles of charge, whic·h are referred to the Court
by the Preside!'lt. are the very foundation ·of the ref~rence
proceedings . Reference jurisdiction, by its very nature, is
jurisdiction of limited scope in contradistinction to original or D
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. For that reason, it
may be difficult for the Court to hold that in exercise of its limited
jurisdiction, the Court can frame such entirely new articles of
charge which have no link, connection or are not even explanatory
to the original charges stated in the Presidential Reference and E
try them as part of the inquiry being conducted by the Court under
Article 317(1) of the Constitution.\This will not be true where the
charges are found to be linked, inter-dependent, explanatory or
incidental to the main articles of charge referred by the President
to this Court. This would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of a given case, but it can be stated with some F
certainty that this Court can examine articles of charge, facts or
evidence which were not before the President while making a
reference to this Court. Such need may arise because of
subsequent events, as a result of investigation or otherwise, and
which have a direct connection to the matters in issue. Thus, the G
contention of the respondents that this Court can neither frame
nor examine additional charges beyond, or in addition to, the
articles of charge referred to in the Presidential Reference cannot
be accepted as a proposition of law. The scope of inquiry by
this Court is of a wide nature and has to be regulated by the H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A procedure which may be prescribed by the Court in terms of the
above stated provisions of law.
28. In Reference 1 of 1983 referred by us supra, this Court
also examined whether additional facts or grounds can be
examined while holding an inquiry into the matters referred in
8 the Presidential Reference and held as under:
"7. . . . The inquiry which this Court is required to hold is
not into the limited question whether, on the basis of facts
found by the President, the charge of misbehaviour_ is
c made out and whether the misbehaviour is ofsuch a nature
as to wa"ant the removal of the person from his office.
The inquiry contemplated by the article is into the facts
themselves and facts also so as to enable this Court to
pronounce upon the question whether the allegations
D made against the Chairman or member are proved at all.
The purpose of Article 317(1) is to ensure the
independence of members of the Public Service
Commissions and to give them protection in the matter of
their tenure. The Judges of the Supreme Court can be
removed from their office only in accordance with the
E
procedure prescribed by Article 124(4) which is made_
applicable to the Judges of High Courts, the Comptroller
and Auditor-General of India and the Chief Election
Commissioner by Articles 218, 148 and A 324(5)
respectively. Members of Public Service Commissions are,
F in one sense, given a higher degree of protection by the
elimination, as far as possible, of political pressures in the
matter of their removal. Any allegation of misbehaviour
made against them has to be examined by the Supreme
Court on merits unlike the allegations made against those
G others whose removal on the ground of proved
misbehaviour or incapacity depends upon the will of the
Parliament. It is impossible to accept that the Supreme
Court in one case and the Parliament in the case of those
others are entrusted by the Constitution with the limited
H power of determining whether the facts found by some other
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 699
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
body establish misbehaviour in one case and misbehaviour A
or incapacity in those others. Their function is to find upon
facts and their duty is to pronounce whether the facts found
by them establish the charge of misbehaviour or
incapacity, as the case may be. "
B
(emphasis supplied)
29. We may usefully refer to a recent judgment of this Court
In Re: Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi [(2007) 11 SCC 547]. In
this case the President had mad~ a Reference under Article
317(1) of the Constitution relating to various aspects of c
misbehaviour alleged to have been committed by Smt. Joshi,
Member of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. The
preliminary steps were completed under the directions of this
Court and after issue of notice, the Court requested the Attorney
General for India to scrutinize the materials. Originally 22 D ,
charges were proposed, then they were reduced to 6 charges
and finally Charges 3 & 6 were dropped as they were not strictly
. within the purview of the Presidential Reference and related to
conduct entirely subsequent to and independent of the
misbehaviour complained of Thus, the charges were framed/ E
approved by the Court vide order dated 5th October, 2005 in
Reference No. 1 of 2004. The evi~ence was led by the parties
and Smt. Joshi's conduct was found to be misbehaviour of the
kind which would justify her removal from the office. While dealing
with the Reference on these facts and discussing the scope of
the inquiry to be conducted by the Court in terms of Article 317 F
(1) of the Constitution, the dictum of this Court as stated in para
5 of the judgment in Reference No. 1 of 1983 (supra) was
reiterated with approval as follows:
"5. The contours of enquiry when a reference is made by G
the President of India under Article 317(1) of the Constitution
of India "has been clearly drawn by this Cou._rt in Special
Reference No. 1 of 1983 [1983] 3SCR639 . This Court·
therein has held that the President's prima facie satisfaction
based on available materials was enough for making a H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A reference to this Court under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution of India and that there was no need for the
President to obtain the opinion of any fact finding body
before making a reference. The enquiry which this Court is
required to hold is not into the limited question whether, on
8 the basis of facts found by the President, the charge of
misbehavior is made out and whether the misbehavior is
of such a nature as to warrant the removal of the person
from his office. The inquiry contemplated by the Article is
into the facts themselves so as to enable the Court to
c pronounce upon the question whether the allegations made
against the member are proved. This Court also indicated
the procedure that could be conveniently followed when this
Court is called upon to answer a reference under Article
317(1) of the Constitution of India."
D 30. To apply the rule of strict construction to the language
of Article 317(1) of the Constitution to the extent that the Court
cannot examine any facts, records or extended charges, would
defeat the object of this provision and the constitutional intent.
While it may be possible to argue that Presidential Reference
E in such cases is not an omnibus Reference which will include
each and every misbehaviour of all time, it will not be possible
to accept the argument that the allegations stated in the
Presidential Reference stricto sensu can be examined by this
Court and nothing else. Keeping in view the stature of the
F Commission, it is important to understand the message behind
the provision and the intendment of enacting Articles 316 to 318
of the Constitution. The Constitution has assigned a definite
stature to the Commission and has provided special
methodology and procedure for removal of its Chairman/
G Me,mber(s) from their respective offices. The message behind
this constitutional scheme may stand frustrated if the argument
advanced on behalf ofthe respondents is accepted. This Court,
in the case of Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association
v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 441], held that the Supreme
H Court being the highest Court of the land, its vitality is a national
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 701
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
imperative. The primary institutional task of this Court is to clearly A
understand the true message that the Constitution intends to
convey; second, to assert the original meaning in that message
in the light ofthe constitutional provisions; and third, to pronounce
what the law is, in harmony with meaningful purpose, original
intent and true spirit of the Constitution. As a result of the above 8
discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the inquiry
proceedings before the Supreme Court cannot be circumscribed
by the Presidential Reference under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution stricto sensu that too to the extent that the Court
cannot examine any additional facts/subsequent events having c
a direct bearing, additional or supplementary articles of charge
which are explanatory or intrinsically related with the charges
specified in the Presidential Reference.
31. Another facet of the same issue is the nomenclature of
the proceedings before this Court while conducting an inquiry D
in terms of Article 317(1) ot.the Constitution. The proceedings
prima impressionis may appear akin to the service jurisprudence
as commonly understood. The basic requirements for the
applicability of service jurisprudence are relationship of employer
and employee, alleged misconduct being in breach of the rules/ E
regulations controlling the conditions of service of such an
employee and such charges then are to be proved in
accordance with the specified procedure for imposition of minor
and major penalties. The departmental proceedings have to be
conducted in accordance with the specified rules and F
regulations. The concept of departmental enquiry under the
service jurisprudence cannot be equated with the proceedings
in an inquiry under Article 317(1) of the Constitution . This
distinction is a marked one. Keeping in mind the constitutional
protections available to the Chairman and Members of the G
Commission, the stature they enjoy and the duties that they are
expected to perform, the principles of service jurisprudence
cannot be strictly applied to these proceedings. As already
noticed, the power to remove the Chairman/Member of the
Commission is exclusively vested in the President and not even
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL. ) S.C.R.

A in their appointing authority. The appointments to the State
Commissions are made by the Governor but still in the wisdom
of the framers of the Constitution, the power to remove them
from office has not been vested in the Governor. This reflects
the kind of autonomy that the framers of the Constitution
s bestowed on the Chairman/Member(s) of the Commission to
ensure proper and fair performance of the functions of the
Commission. The Chairman and Members of the Commission
are not Government servants, as commonly understood, though
they may be holding a public office. The standard of burden of
c proof as postulated under service jurisprudence may, to some
extent, be applicable to these proceedings. In the case of Ram
Kumar Kashyap (supra), this Court while upholding the order
of suspension of the very respondents in the present case,
passed by the Governor in exercise of the powers vested under
Article 317(2) of the Constitution, held as under:
0
"9. It will be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in
Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India,
In re wherein it was held that the position of a Chairman or
a member of a Public Service Commission cannot be
E equated with that of a 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. The relevant observations
were made at para 9:
F "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 governed by the special
G provisions dealing with different aspects of his office
as envisaged by Articles 315 to 323 of Chapter II of
Part XIV of the Constitution. In· our view the decisions
dealing with service cases relied upon on behalf of
the respondent have no application to the present
H matter and the reference will have to be answered
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 703
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
on the merits of the case with reference to the A
complaint and the respondent's defence."
32. Therefore, principles of service jurisprudence may not
be strictly applicable to the inquiry proceedings under Article
317(1) of the Constitution. Inter alia, it is for the reason that being
8
constitutional body, the Chairman and Members of the
Commission are to maintain much higher standards of
performance and behaviour than the civil servants appointed to
the state services.
33. The next limb of the same argument is with regard to C
applicability of principles of criminal jurisprudence to the present
proceedings in regard to opportunity of being heard, burden of
proof and content of charges. The principles of criminal
jurisprudence contemplate different standards of proof, language
of charge and protections available to a suspect/accused. It is o
neither practicable nor possible to apply the norms of crim"inal
law to the proceedings under Article 317(1) of the Constitution
of India. In criminal law, the charge should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and an accused cannot be convicted on the
basis of probability. Under the service jurisprudence, a person E
may be found guilty even on the charge being proved on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities while in the proceedings
of the present kind, conduct of a person may amount to
misbehaviour requiring his removal under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution on the basis of rule of reasonable preponderance
of probabilities. This distinction is fully justified with reference to · F
the constitutional scheme behind these provisions and the
standards of performance and behaviour that the holders of such
office are required to maintain. In other words, the proceedings
before this Court are neither akin to proceedings under service
law nor criminal law. In fact, they are sui generis. That may be G
one of the reasons that the framers of the Constitution opted not
to give power of removal of Chairman/Member of the
Commission to any other person except the President of India,
and that too, on the basis of a report of this Court. Further, .the
H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A procedure for removal has neither been stated in the Constitution
in detail nor has this Court framed any elaborate rules in exercise
of its power under Article 145 of the Constitution. The nature of
the proceeding is such that it may become necessary for the
Court to adopt a procedure befitting the facts and circumstances
a of a given case. Thus, we also have no hesitation in rejecting
the contention of the respondents that the burden of proof applied
to such cases has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In fact, we
need not deliberate any further on this point in view of the fact
that this Court in the case of Smt. Joshi (supra) also took the
c same view, the reasoning whereof we adopt with respect and
refer to paragraph 15 of the judgment which reads as under :
" 15. Learned counsel for Respondent 3 argued as if this
reference was a criminal trial and the charge against the
respondent has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
D Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission
submitted that these proceedings were neither in the nature
of a criminal trial nor in the nature of the service dispute,
but that it was a question of an inquiry into the conduct of
a member of the Public Service Commission who was
E expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity. This
Court in Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution
of India, In re while answering Special Reference No. 1 of
1983 had noticed:
"9. The case of a government servant is, subject to the
F 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 governed QY the special provisions dealing with
different aspects of his office as envisaged by Articles 315
G to 323 of Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution. In our
view the decisions dealing with service cases relied upon
on behalf of the respondent have no application to the
present matter and the reference will have to be answered
on the merits of the case with reference to the complaint
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 705
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
and the respondent's defence." A
34. Further in para 143, this Court held as under :
"143 ... As we have indicated in the beginning, what we are
concerned with is the appreciation of the evidence of PW
15 examined before us in the light of his cross-examination, 8
the other evidence and in the light of his prior statement
contained in Ext. 53. So viewed, it is really a question of
believing or disbelieving the evidence of PW 15 given
before us. We are not dealin_g with a prosecution and in
that context the alleged confession of a co-accused. We c ;
are on a fact-finding enquiry based on the evidence before
us and the probabilities of the case."
35. The above reasoning persuades us to follow the law
enunciated in the afore-referred cases and take .the view that
the content and nature of the proceedings before this Court under 0
Article 317(1) is sui generis and the Court can evolve its own
procedure in consonance with the principles of natural justice to
suit the facts of a given case and to ensure that ends of justice
are achieved and there is no abuse of the process of Court.
E
Discussion on the scope of approved articles of charge
36. There is no doubt that in the Presidential Reference
dated 31st July, 2008, there were only three articles of charge
attributing misbehaviour to the Chairman and Members of the
Commission. We have reproduced them above. However, F
because of subsequent investigation, certain additional facts,
documentary evidence came to the notice of the concerned
authorities. On the strength of the subsequent events and
additional information thus acquired, it is stated on behalf of the
Government that attitude of complete non-cooperation was G
adopted by the Chairman and Members of the Commission as
a result of which complete records could not be placed before
the Governor/President. It is also submitted that the newly
nominated Members of the Commission decided to hand over
the records to the inquiry/investigating agencies. As a result H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A thereof it became possible for the authorities and the State
Government to place the same before this Court in these
proceedings. We do not wish to examine this issue in any further
elucidation at this stage as non-cooperation itself is a separate
charge against the respondents and it will be more appropriate
8 to discuss the entire issue at that stage.
37. Nine articles of charge were proposed to be framed
and they were termed as draft charges, which we have already
referred to in the earlier part of the judgment. They came to be
plaeed for the consideration of this Court. Arguments were heard
C and vide order dated 22nd April, 2009, the draft charges framed
were approved by this Court. Once the charges have been
approved by the Court, the parties have gone to trial on all the
approved articles of charge and have led evidence in support
thereof. There can hardly be any bar for this Court to consider
D all the approved articles of charge. Besides this, the respondents
were given liberty to raise legal objections at the time of adducing
evidence on these draft charges. This liberty was granted on
the contention raised that the referred articles of charge are not
complete and several facts have not been stated either in the
E Presidential Reference or in the Governor's letter of Reference.
In face .of this order, we are afraid that we cannot accept the
contention now that charges 4 to 9 n~ed be excluded from the
zone of consideration by this Court..~
38. The approved articles of charge 1, 3, 5, 8 and 9 h~ve
F been framed against all the nine private respondents. Charges
4, 6 and 7 have been framed only against respondent No.1.
Lastly, Charge 2 has been framed against respondents No.1 to
4. While Charge 1 relates to lack of qualification and experience.
Charges 3, 5 and 9 relate to non-cooperation by passing
G resolutions not to handover the records to the inquiring/
investigating agencies. Charges 6 and 7 relate to influencing
subordinates and abuse of public office by the respondent
specifically named under these charges. Charge 2 attributes
misbehaviour to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in relation to irregular
H appointment of Pradeep Sangwan.
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC 707
{SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
39. Charge 3, as approved by this Court, relates to refusal A
on the part of all the respondents to cooperate and to supply
documents, as required by the investigating agencies. Charge
5 of the approved articles of charge also refers to withholding
of the material records which were required by the investigating
agencies as well as by the Government in face of the fact that B
the Government had received complaints of serious irregularities
and illegalities committed by the Chairman and members of the
·Commission in various selections including selection to the
Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services
Exam.i nation, 2002. Charge 9, again, is a repetition and, c
primarily, refers that there was direction to the Commission to
cooperate with the investigating agencies. Despite such orders,
the Commission did not cooperate and such conduct amounted
to misbehaviour on their part. All these three approved articles
of charge have been framed against all the nine respondents .
D
·In the letter of the Governor to the President dated 16th January,
2007, it has been specifically mentioned that several complaints
were rece ived against various selections made by the
Commission. Enquiries by the Vigilance Bureau as well as by
other investigating agencies , in furtherance to the FIRs
E
registered, were pending. The wrong and arbitrary selections
had generated 139 Writ Petitions and seven Special Leave
Petitions during the tenure of the Chairman/Members of the
Commission, the respondents herein. Specific reference was
made to the High Court's order directing the Commission to
fully cooperate. These charges are analogous to the third charge F
mentioned in the Presidential Reference. Charges 5 and 9, as
approved by the Court, thus, are explanatory and intrinsically
inter-connected to Charge 3. Thus, these can be examined by
the Court on merits.
G
40. Charge 4 merely refers to the proceedings of Writ
Petition No. 15390 of 2002 which had been specified in detail
in the letter of the Governor to the President which itself is the
foundation for making of the Reference by the President in the
present case. Charge 4, in fact, is repetition in a concise form
H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A of the paragraphs mentioned in the letter of the Governor. The •
illegalities, manipulations and interpolations had been referred
to not only on the records of this case but even in the Writ Petitions
filed before the High Court. In terms of para 8 of Governor's
letter. it is alleged that a reply had been filed by the Chairman
B and Members of the Commission in an unlawful manner to cover
up their o~n mistakes. Further, Charge 8 is merely ancillary to
Charge 4 which itself is not beyond the record which was placed
before the President and, in any case, all these facts have come
to light subsequently. We may also notice here that during the
c course of hearing, some of the original answer sheets were
produced before us, however, the entire compilation was filed
and accepted, during the recording of evidence in the present
inquiry.
41. Charges 6 and 7 of approved articles of charge are
D inter-connected. However, we may notice that these approved
articles of charge are totally independent and are not incidental
or explanatory to the articles of charge specified in the
Presidential Reference. They do not even emerge directly from
the record produced before us. The alleged malicious acts of
E influencing the subordinates to carry out the intended
manipulations to favour desired persons and abuse of the public
office and defending the illegal acts referred to in approved
article 6 of the charges, therefore, cannot be gone into by this
Court. We have already held that this Court can examine
F explanatory, incidental or intrinsically inter-connected charges
to the charges mentioned in the Reference and in that respect
can take note of additional facts, take evidence and examine
the entire rec.ord before it. But where the charges, apparently
and in substance, are new and do not appear to be justifiable
G on the basis of the record and there is no direct evidence to
substantiate them, it may not be in the ends of justice that this
Court should examine those articles of charge in the present
inquiry. In the event they are examined, the deli~quent Chairman/
Member of the Commission may suffer prejudice to his right of
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 709
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
· defence and this may offend the constitutional protection that is A
available to such Chairman/Member which cannot be permitted.
Therefore, we would only proceed to examine Charges 1·5, 8
and 9.
'Misbehaviour' in contradistinction to 'misconduct' and
B
'proved misbehaviour'
42. The condition precedent to an order being passed by
the President of India, removing the Chairman/Member of the
Commission from office, is a report of the Supreme Court to the
President recording a finding after inquiry that the Chairman/ C
Member ought to be removed from office on the ground of
misbehaviour. The plain language of Article 317(1) indicates
that the expression 'on the ground of misbehaviour' is an
expression of wide connotation and can not be given a restricted
meaning. Normally, such term should be understood keeping in o
view the nature of the misbehaviour complained of, the office in
question and the standards expected to be maintained by the
constitutional body in discharge of its functions. The framers of
the Constitution opted to use different expressions in other
Articles relating to misconduct or misbehaviour of other E
Constitutional institutions. Use of different expressions in
different Articles of the Constitution itself indicates the clarion
intent of the framers to correlate a misconduct or misbehaviour
to the constitutional status held by the person in terms of expected
standards of performance, functions, integrity and rectitude. F.
· While in Article 317(1) of the Constitution the expression 'on the
ground of misbehaviour' has been used, which is to be
established by report of this Court, in Article 124(4) tlie
expression 'on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity'
indicates a condition precedent to removal of a Judge of the
Supreme Court from office. To demonstrate this clear distinction, G
reference can usefully be made to Article 311 of the Constitution
dealing with civil services. A civil servant such as Member of
the All India Service or Civil Services of the State, though not a
constitutional appointee in the sense understood under Articles
316 and 124, shall be dismissed or removed from office or H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010]14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A r~duced in rank only after holding an enquiry in which he has
been informed of the charges again st him and given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those
charges. The concept of doctrine of pleasure, which is applicable
to civil servants, is not attracted in the constitutional appointments
B under Articles 124 and 316. Removal is possible only when the
conditions postulated under these Articles are satisfied. In order
to clearly understand the fine distinction between misbehaviour
and misconduct which at some places have even been treated
synonymously, we may refer to some accepted definitions of
c these terms. In Law Lexicon 2nd Ed . 1997, the te.rm
'misbehaviour' is explained as under:
"ill-conduct: improper and unlawful behaviour. The term
'misbehaviour', in a statute providing that the award of
arbitrators may be vacated if the arbitrators were guilty of
D misbehaviour, is used to imply a·wrongful intention, and not
a mere error of judgment, on t~e part of the arbitrators.
43. In Reference No.1 of 2003 [(2009) 1 SCC 344] this
Court noted that the expression 'misbehaviour' has not been
E defined, but still ventured to provide certain examples of such
misbehaviour which would constitute 'misbehaviour' as
contemplated under Article 317(1) of the Constitution held as
under:
"28. Article 317, like Article 124{4) does not define
F misbehaviour or enumerate what acts would constitute
misbehaviour except that clause (4) of Article 317 makes
an improvement in specifying misbehaviour, namely, being
interested in any government contract. Outside clause (4),
it is left to the Supreme Court to determine whether any
G particular act or conduct is of such a nature as to warrant
the removal of the Chairman or member on the ground of
"misbehaviour". Ordinarily bribery, corruption and the like
should be regarded as such "misbehaviour". But there is
no limitation prescribed by the Constitution itself.
H 30. In Article 124(4) "misbehaviour" means wrong conduct
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 711
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
or improper conduct. It has to be construed with reference A
to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term
occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or the statute
under consideration. Every act or conduct or error of
judgment or negligence by a constitutional authority per se
does not amount to misbehaviour. Misconduct implies a B
creation of some degree or mens rea by the doer. Willful
abuse of constitutional office, willful misconduct in the office,
corruption, lack of integrity or any other offence involving
moral turpitude would be mi.sbehaviour. Judicial finding of
guilt of grave crime is misconduct. Persistent failure to c
perform duties or willful abuse of the office would be
misbehaviour. On the facts and in the circumstances of the
case this Court is of the opinion that Charge 1 that Dr.
Mirdha, who was the Chairman of OPSC , committed
misbehaviour by not informing that his two married
0
daughters were to appear in the examination is not proved."
44. The expression 'misconduct' has been explained in Law
·r - ---·
Lexicon (2nd Edn.) as under :
"The term "misconduct" implies a wrongful intention, and E
not a mere error of judgment.
Malfeasance; improper conduct.
45. Needless to notice neither misbehaviour nor misconduct
has been defined in the Constitution or even in the Central Civil
F
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Once
an expression has not been defined, then it must be understood
and explained in its common parlance, keeping in view the object
sought to be achieved. In the case of R.P. Kapur v. S. Partap
Singh Kairon [(1961) 63 Punj LR 780], the Court explained the
term 'misbehaviour' while dealing with the matter under the Public G
Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 and held that misbehaviour qua
proceeding under that Act, in absence of definition, is a word
of very wide import. 'Misbehaviour', when employed in respect
of holders of high offices, has a well understood and well defined
meaning according to the tradition and standards maintained H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.} S.C.R.

A by the members of a particular service or office. This Court had
the occasion to deal with the expression misconduct in the case
of Narotanmal Chouraria v. M. R. Murli [(2004} 5 SCC 689]
wherein the Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of
State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable [(1992} 4 SCC
B 54] and referred to paragraph 6 of that judgment with approval
and held in paragraph 10 and 11 of the judgment as under :
"10...

"6. Thus it could be seen that the word 'misconduct'
c though not capable of precise definition, on reflection
receives its connotation from the context, the
delinquency in its performance and its effect on the
discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve
moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong
D behaviour; unlawful behaviour, willful in character;
forbidden act, a transgression of established and
definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere
error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in
performance of the duty; the act complained of bears
forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be
E
construed with reference to the subject-matter and
the context wherein the term occurs, regard being
had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose
it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined
service and it requires to maintain strict discipline.
F
Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service
causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and
order."
(See also Probodh Kumar Bhowmick v. University of
G Calcutta and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India.}
11. Section 35 of the Advocates Act, however. refers to
imposition of punishment for professional or other
misconduct. A member of the legal profession which is a
noble one is expected to maintain a standard in a dignified
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 713
[SWATANTER KUMAR, ~ - ]
and determined manner. The standard requ ired to be A
maintained by the member of the legal profession must be
commensurate with the nobi lity thereof. A lawyer is
obligated to observe those norms which make him worthy
of the confidence of the community in him as an officer of
the court. This Court in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. 8
Dabholkar observed :
"The high moral tone and the considerable public
service the Bar is associated with and its key role
in the developmental and disput~-processing
activities and, aboye all, in the building up of a just C
society and co:1stitutional order, has earned for it a
monopoly to practise law and an autonomy to
regulate its own internal discipline."
46. This Court in the case of Union of India v. J. Ahmed 0
[(1979) 2 sec 286], while dealing with disciplinary proceedings,
under the service law, explained the term 'misconduct' to mean
conduct not expected of a member ~f service. conduct in a
manner inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of duties
and &ervice or gross or habitual negligence in performance of E
duties.
47 . 'Proved misbehaviour' is an expression clearly
distinguishable from the above terms of 'misbehaviour' and
'misconduct' as is apparent from the language of Article 124(4)
of the Constitution.lntent, gravity and onus are of a much higher F
degree. The prefix 'proved' places an obligation of actually
proving the misbehaviour before the parliamentary procedure
for removal of a Judge can come into play. This Court in the
case of Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of
India [(1991) 4 SCC 699] held as under: G
"44. The Constitution intended a clear provision for the first
part covered fully by enacted law, the validity of which and
the process thereunder being subject to judicial review
independent of any political colour and after proof it was
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010J 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

. A intended to be a parliamentary process. It is this synthesis
made in our Constitutional Scheme for removal of a Judge.
If the motion for presenting an address for removal is
envisaged by Articles 121 and 124(4) 'on ground of proved
misbehaviour or incapacity' it presupposes that
B misbehaviour or incapacity has been proved earlier. This
is more so on account of the expression 'investigation and
proof used in clause (5) with specific reference to clause
(4). This indicates that 'investigation and proof' of
misbehaviour or incapacity is not within clause (4) but within
c clause (5). Use of the expression 'same session' in clause
{4) without any reference to session in clause (5) also
indicates that session of House has no significance for
clause (5) i.e., 'investigation and proof which is to be entirely
governed by the enacted law and not the parliamentary
0 practice which may be altered by each Lok Sabha.
45. The significance of the word 'proved ' before the
expression 'misbehaviour or incapacity' in clause (4) of
Article 124 is also indicated when the provision is compared
with Article 317 providing for removal of a member of the
E
Public Service Commission. The expression in clause (1)
of Article 317 used for describing the ground of removal is
'the ground of misbehaviour' while in clause (4) of Article
124, it is, 'the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity'.
The procedure for removal of a member of the Public
F Service Commission is also prescribed in clause (1) which
provides for an inquiry by the Supreme Court on a reference
made for this purpose. In the case of a Judge, the procedure
for investigation and proof is to be in accordance with the
law enacted by the.Parliament under clause (5) of Article
G 124. In view of the fact that the adjudication of the ground
of misbehaviour under Article 317(1) is to be by the
Supreme Court, ·in the case of a Judge who is a higher
constitutional functionary , the requirement of judicial
determination of the ground is reinforced by the addition of
H the word 'proved' in Article 124(4) and the requirement of
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC 715
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J .]
law for this purpose under Article 124(5)." A
48. All these expressions fall under different domains of
jurisdiction and operate in distinct and different fields . The
distinction, primarily, is that of degree, intent and expected
standard required to be maintained in relation to the office that
the delinquent holds. Onus of proof and severity of misconduct
8
will be relatable to the office one is holding. Misconduct may
relate to graver acts, deeds and omissions while misbehaviour
may relate to the standards expected to be maintained by the
holder of the constitutional office. In other words, misbehaviour/
misconduct qould be used interchangeably in certain C
circumstances while in other they may have to be understood
as clearly distinguishable. 'Misbehaviour' may include behaviour
that was not expected of the holder of the constitutional office
but would not include 'grave .misconduct' or 'proved
misbehaviour'. This distinction has to be kept in mind by this D
Court where the constitutional mandate refers to 'misbehaviour'
which is an expression of very wide magnitude. As already held
by this Court in the case of Reference No.1 of 2003 (supra) ,
this term must be construed very liberally so as to bring within
its ambit the behaviour of. the Chairman/Member of the E
Commission which, as per settled norms, was not expected of
him/her. The expression 'misbehaviour' generally refers to a
conduct which might erode the faith and confidence of the public
at large in such constitutional office.

Discussion on merits of the approved articles of charge F

49. Before we proceed to discuss the evidence on each
approved article of charge, as well as record our findings in that
regard, it is imperative to note, as already held, that we are only
examining Charges 1 to 5, 8 and 9. Charges 6 and 7 do not G
require examination by this Court as they are ex-facie beyond
the permissible scope of the Presidential Reference. The second
aspect, which requires to be noticed by the Court, is that though
approved articles of charge have been framed against all the
private respondents, while the proceedings were pending, H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010]14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A private respondents, namely, Doonger Ram, Chattar Singh,
Yudhvir Singh, Satbir Singh, Om Prakash and Dr. Ranbir Singh
were suspended. vide order dated 9th August, 2008 and,
thereafter, they have ceased to be the Members of the
Commission as their terms of appointment has come to an end
B by efflux of time during 9th June, 2009 to 9th August, 2010. The
learned counsel, appearing for the State, submitted that though
in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Reference
1 of 1983 [(1990) 4 sec 262, para 8], the Court may be called
upon to examine the misbehaviour even in respect . of the
c Chairman/Member whose term has already expired, still he has
specific instructions not to press for recording of findings in the
inquiry against these respondents . Consequently, while
accepting this request which was unopposed, we further declare
that this Court would not be examining the alleged misbehaviour
of these private respondents.
0
Article of Charge 1
50. Therefore, the Court has to examine the correctness or
otherwise of artiCle 1 of the approved charges only qua Mehar
Singh Saini, Chairman, Mrs. Santosh Singh and Ram Kumar
E Kashyap, Members of the Commission. It is alleged that their
qualifications, experience and stature were not of the required
standard for appointment to their respective constitutional
offices. Their appointments have been made with a yiew to
ensure that they would further the objectives of the political party,
F then in power. Thus, by conniving in the subversion of the
Constitution, they are guilty of misbehaviour under Article 317(1)
of the Constitution.
51. First, it needs to be noticed that the words 'by conniving
G in the subversion of the Constitution' are introduced in the draft
charges which, of course, stand approved by this Court. In any
case, this is only an explanatory line and does not change the
content and meaning of this article of charge, as stated in the
Presidential Reference. The appointment to the office of
H Chairman and Members of-the Commission is made by the
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 717
[SWATANTER KUMAR. J.]
Governor ofthe State in terms of Article 316 of the Constitution. A
Under proviso to Article 316(1), one half of the members of the
Commission shall be persons who, at the dates of their
respective appointments, have held an office either under the
Government of India or under the Government of a State for at
least 10 years, implying that the remaining half of the Members B
of the Commission. can be appointe~ by the Governor in
accordance with law. 'In accordance with law' means that they
are to be appointed on the recommendation of the State
Government as the Governor has to act on the advice of the
Council of Ministers. The provisions of Article 316 of the c
Constitution do not lay down any qualification, educational or
otherwise, for appointment to the Commission as Chairman/
Member. One-half of the Members of the Commission, as nearly
as may be, are expected to fulfil the r~quirement of holding
appointments under the State or the Centre for a period of ten 0
years. These Members are termed as 'Official Members' while
the others are 'Non-official Members' as already indicated by
us above. Even for the Official Members no specific academic
qualification has been provided. In oth~r words, there is no
constitutional requirement of any particular academic
qualification for appointment as Official/Non-official Member of E
the Commission. Similarly, no specific experience of any number
of years .is required for appointment as Non-official Member. In
the case of Jai ShankarPrasadv. State ofBihar[(1993) 2 SCC
597], this Court stated that it is clear that framers of the
Constitution realized that to make the provision rigid was both F
inadvisable and unnecessary. The Court also demonstrated its
impracticability. It can further hardly be suggested that the need
to have 50% from the service category is of such paramount
importance to the composition of the Commission that the
breach of it, at any particular point of time, would defeat the very G
object of constituting the Commission. The purpose, for which
the said provision is made, is obvious. It was realized by the
framers of the Constitution that the democratic system can be
maintained only if civil servants are appointed solely on the basis
of their merit adjudged by open competition and only if they can H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A carry on the administration according to law independently,
instead of under pressure of their political superiors. Hence, they
provided for Public Service Commissions at both the Union and
State levels . Charge 1 alleges improper qualifications,
experience and stattr.:; against these private respondents . What
B is lacking has been left to imagination? Whether they do not fulfil
the prescribed qualification or do not have'adequate experience
and stature, which they ought to possess, is again a matter of
guess work. Whenever a charge of misbehaviour is framed, it
needs to be specific in its content. If only vague averments are
c made without giving any particulars or even documentary
evidence to support such a charge, the delinquent Member may
not be able to respond to them properly. This may_cause serious
prejudice to the concerned Chairman/Member. Once a
constitutional provision does not provide for any specific
0 academic qualification or experience of any particular cadre,
official post or stature in the private field that they ought to have
held before their appointment to this constitutional office, then
any such allegation will stare the State in face and it will be difficult
for this Court to hold that these respondents are guilty of
misbehaviour and can be removed from their office in terms of
E Article 317(1) of the Constitution . The learned counsel appearing
for the State vehemently argued that even if the constitutional
provisions do not provide specific qualification and experience,
still this Court should lay down such prescriptions keeping in
view the high constitutional office that the private respondents
F hold. According to him, the Court should, at least, state clear
guidelines in that regard for appointment to such office. We may
refer to the judgment of this Court in Reference No. 1 of 1997/n
the Matter of Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav (supra}, wherein the Court
emphasized that keeping in line with the high expectations of
G their office 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 are expected to be role· models for the persons whom they
H are going to select for Civil Services. The character and conduct
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC 719
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
of the Chairman and Members of the Commission, like Caesar's A
wife, must therefore, be above board. They occupy a unique
place and position; utmost objectivity in the performance of their
duties, integrity and detachment are essential requirements for
holding these high constitutional offices. Similarly, in the case
of /nderpreet Singh Kah/on v. State of Punjab [(2006) 11 SCC 8
356], this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction was
concerned with allegations against the Chairman of the Punjab
Public Service Coll)mission that in discharge of his duties, he
had selected persons for extraneous as well as monetary
considerations during 1996 to 2002. For such conduct and c
selections, FIRs had been registered in that behalf while the
selection of the appointed candidates was also challenged.
While dealing with these allegations, the Court held as under:
11
102. This unfortunate episode teacttes us an
important lesson that before appointing the ~onstitutional D
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 E
is required to be maintained and demonstrated. The 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 F
honesty are appointed to these constitutional positions."
52. In the above lines, this Court has explained the standards
of performance which are expected to be maintained by the
Chairman/Members of the Commission.
·G
53. Desirability, if any, of providing specific qualification or
experience for appointment as Chairman/Members of the
Commission is a function of the Parliament. The guidelines or
parameters, if any, including that of stature, if required to be
specified are for the appropriate Government to ·frame. This
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A requires expertise in the field ; data study and adoption of the
best methodology by the concerned Government. I
to make ·
appointments to the Commission on merit, ability an(t integrity.
Neither such expertise is available with the Court nor will it be
I -
in consonance with the constitutional
.
scheme ttlat this Court
/

8 should venture into reading such qualifications into Article 316
or provide any specific guidelines controlling the academic
qualification, experience and stature of an individual who is
proposed to be appointed to this coveted office. Of course, while
declining to enter into such arena, we still feel ~onstrained to
c observe that this is a matter which needs the attention of the
Parliamentarians and concerned quarters in the Governments.
One of the factors , which has persuaded us to make this
observation.. is the number of cases which have' been' referred
to this Court by the President of India in terms of Article 317(1)
of the Constitution in recent years. A large number of inquiries
0
are pending before this Court which itself reflects that all is not
well with the functioning of the Commissions.
54. The Government has led documentary and oral
evidence and has opted to examine, as many as, 31 witnesses
E in support of the approved article·s of charge. In regard to
approved article of charge 1, we find that there is hardly any
direct oral or documentary evidence. While.this charge relates
to lack of qualification, experience and stature, the Governor's
letter to the President states that these persons influenced the
F Governm·e nt in making their appointments. Of course, it is
expected that persons being appointed to such high office should
not use any influence or pressure or take favour from the
Government in power but at the same time that fault would have
to be traced to the processing and the appointing authority rather
than the candidate alone. It was contended that the Chairman,
G Mehar Singh. Saini, is a private practitioner holding a BAMS
degree only and , therefore, ineligible/incompetent ·to be
appointed to the post of Chairman of the Commission. However,
it was not disputed by any of the parties appearing before us
H that he was from the Non-official category and, as such, the
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 721
[SWATANTER KUMAR , J.]
experience of ten years as Government appointee would not A
apply to him. Similar is the case with regard to respondent No.
8, Mrs. Santosh Singh, a teacher. Respondent No.9, Mr. Ram
Kumar Kashyap, who has been appointed to the Commission
as Official Member possessed ten years experience of holding
Government office, as he had held the post of Field Assistant B
in ESA Department. It is ·contended that experience of holding
such a post, in terms of stature and otherwise, is entirely
inadequate for appointment to the Commission. The
constitutional provisions . do not provide any qualification for
Official/Non-official Members. It also does not provide any c
experience in any particular field or office for Non-official
Members. In the case of an Official Member, it is nowhere spelt
out as to which cadre in the official hierarchy, he should have
experience of 10 years. In these circumstances, we find that the
Government has. failed to prove Charge 1 and we hold the
0
respondents not guilty of any misbehaviour as contemplated
under Article 317(1) on this count.
Article of Charge 2
55. This charge has been framed against four of the nine
E
private respondents . It is alleged that Mehar Singh Saini along
with Dunger Ram, O.P. Bishnoi and Chattar Singh as members
of the Selection Committee recommended the name of Pradeep·
Sangwan for the post of Drug Inspector on the basis of bogus
experience certificate. It was contended that selection of
Pradeep Sangwan was , thus, arbitrary and constituted F.
misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. ln regard
to the irregularities committed, an FIR being FIR No.15 of 2005
was lodged; during investigation and on further inquiry by the
State Vigilance Bureau, various documents have come to light
which show that selection of Pradeep Sangwan was arbitrary G
and was made in a manner, which is not acceptable in law.
Pradeep Sangwan did not possess the requisite essential
qualifications and experience. A complaint against his selection
was filed by one Rakesh Walia. Despite this, the candidate was
. not only selected but also recommended on the basis of the 11
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADQL.) S.C.R.

A bogus experience certificate and subsequently appointed to the
post of Drug Inspector by the State Government. The
documents, which are on record and have been referred by the
learned counsel in that behalf, are the application form and ·
certificates submitted by the candidate, statements of witnesses
B including the witness from M/s. lee Drugs, whose certificate
was produced by the candidate for the purpose of satisfying the
essential condition of experience before the Selection
Committee.
56. The counsel appearing for the Commission has not even
C attempted to deny these averments and the charge against these
Members. However, on behalf of four private respondents, it is
contended that it was not for the Members of the Selection
Committee to verify the contents of the certificate. They have
conducted the selection in accordance with law and no
D arbitrariness can be attributed to them . As many as 27
candidates were considered for the post and, ultimately, two
names were recommended . Pradeep Sangwan, being at serial
number 1, was then appointed by the Government and as such
no fault could be attributed to the members of the Selection
E Committee. It is also argued that if Pradeep Sangwan has
obtained a bogus certificate then, at best, he can ·be said to
have committed some offence and that cannot be understood
as an instance of misbehaviour on the part of the private
respondents. Further, the contention is that there is no evidence
F to support this charge.
57. The charge is simpliciter relating to improper selection
of Pradeep Sangwan for the post of Drug Inspector for which he
was recommended at serial number 1 and was, subsequently,
appointed by the concerned Government. The approved article
G of charge may not spell out every minute detail of the improper
selection but, in substance and keeping in view the dignity of
the office of the Commission, it would be sufficient if a serious
suspicion is cast on the process of selection which is attributable
to and/or is result .of commission or omission of the members
H of the Selection Committee. We may scrutinize the merits of
IN RE : MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 723
[SWATANTER KUMAR , J .]
this approved charge by examining the documents on the record. A
The State Government had advertised various posts including
two posts of Drug Inspector and the essential qualification and
experience for the same were as follows :
"Essential Qualifications and Experience :
8
(a) Second Class Bachelor Degree in Pharmacy or
Pharmaceutical ·Chemistry.

(b) 1 % years experience in manufacturing of at least
one of the substances specified in schedule 'C' C
. appended to the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945
OR 1 % years experience in testing of at least one
of the substances specified in the said Schedule
'C' in a Laboratory approved for the purpose by the
Licensing Authority OR three years experience in
inspection of Firms manufacturing any of the D
substances specified in the said Schedule 'C'.
(c) Adequate knowledge of Hindi."
58. Condition No.2 of general clarifications, as published
in the advertisement, reads as under : E

"Generar Clarifications

2. Incomplete application form i.e. without proof of age
and the minimum required qualifications and
experience will be straightway rejected without F
entering into any correspondence. "

59. From the bare reading of the above essential
qualifications, it is clear that these qualifications could not be
relaxed at the discretion of the Commission. Furthermore, a G
candidate has to have one and a half years of experience in
manufacturing of at least one of the substances specified in
Schedule C appended to Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 or
one and a half years experience in testing of any such substance
in a laboratory approved for the purpose by the Licensing
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Authority. Any application, which was incomplete and did not
annex the required certificate of experience, was liable to be
rejected straightaway. The last date of submission of application
as well as for consideration of the eligibility criteria was 3rd
September, 2004. Let us now examine the application that was
8 submitted by Pradeep Sangwan. Pradeep Sangwan had
submitted application No.25827, as per tpe endorsement made
under receipt No. (??????? ??????) 713 dated (??????) 9th
September, 2004. However, respondent No.5 had initialed the
application with the date as 3rd September, 2004. This,
c obviously, means that the endorsement.by respondent No.5 on
the ·application was ante-dated to the actuai date of receipt of
the application. This application ought to have been rejected at
the very threshold inasmuch as this was received after the
prescribed last date of receipt of application i.e. 3rd September,
D 2004. .
60. In his application , under column No.10, Pradeep
Sangwan had stated that he has done his B. Pharma from M.D.
University, Roht~k in 2001 . In column No.12 of the application,
the applicant had not stated that he had any experience of
E teaching on regular and/or voluntary basis. However, he had
annexed to the application a copy of the certificate dated 16th
August, 2004 stating that he had served in Janta College of
Pharmacy, Butana, Sonepat over the weekends on voluntary
basis for the period February 2001 to 15th May 2003 and
F worked as Lecturer in the same from June 2003 till the date of
issuance of the certificate. Another certificate of experience,
which was annexed to the application and which was mentioned
in column No.12 of the application, was the certificate issued by
Zee Drugs, Agra. This certificate is alleged to have been signed
G by authorized signatory of the firm and it states that during the
period 20th May 2001 to 2oth May 2003, Pradeep Sangwan
worked as a Pharmacist in the company at a salary of Rs.5,000/
-.This application, despite the above defects, appears to have
been pr~cessed by the office of the Commission. From the
H original records produced before the Court during the course of
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC 725
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
hearing, it is clear that correct noting was not recorded. Still, the A
same was approved by the Members of the Commission (private
respondents) and the candidate was called for the interview.
The interview was .held on 29th September, 2004 and despite
the fact that there were more competent and meritorious
candidates available, he was selected and placed at serial No.1. B
61. It may be notic~d that there were 76 applicants for the
post, of which 27 were called for the interview and finally a select
list of two was prepared. The recommendation of the selection
committee was sent to the Government on 2nd November, 2004.
However, on 5th October, 2004, a complaint was received from C
Mr. Rakesh Walia about the selection of Pradeep Kumar, son
of Ram Singh having residential address, which was not that of
this applicant as given in his application. This complaint made
a specific allegation that the experience certificate furnished by
Pradeep Kumar was bogus. The candidate had never worked D
as a Manufacturing Chemist in Zee Drugs. In fact, he was working
as a Lecturer and, therefore, it was physically impossible for
him to have worked with Zee Drugs on a regular basis.
Complainant stated that he could file an affidavit to prove that
the experience certificate was bogus and false. Copy of this E
complaint was sent to the Chairman of the Commission, Chief
Secretary, Government of Haryana and Chief Minister of the
· State of Haryana. In response to the complaint, a note was put
up to state that neither the complainant Rakesh Walia nor
Pradeep Kumar was a candidate for the post and hence no F
action was required to be taken. It was put up for consideration,
through the Superintendent, before Mr. Yudhvir Singh, Member
of the Commission, who approved its filing and then it was also
signed by the Chairman of the Commission. It needs to be
noticed that this process adopted by the Commission and, G
particularly, by its Member and Chairman was not in consonance
with the known canons of administrative jurisprudence. May be
the names of Pradeep Sangwan and his father were stated
incorrectly as Pradeep Kumar and Ram Singh in the complaint,
but fact of the matter remains that Pradeep Sangwan was the
H.
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (AOOL.) S.C.R.

A selected candidate. Select list of only two persons had been
prepared and approved by the Selection Committee. Thus it
was expected that this complaint ought to have been examined
in some detail, particularly when the facts alleged in the complaint
found due support from the documents annexed to the
B application of the candidate as well as the official records of the
Commission. In the present day when unemployment is one of
the biggest problems faced by our country, it is expected that
the Commission will scrutinize the antecedents of a cand idate
with utmost ca~e before recommending him for appointme~t that
c too for a responsible post such as Senior Drug Inspector.
Despite this complaint, the results were aP,provedton
J ...
26th and
27th October, 2004 by the Chairman a·rid Members of the
Commission. The private respondents had signed those minutes
and forwarded the names to the Government on 2nd November,
2004. Such conduct of the Chairman an9 members of the
0 Commission not only shows omissions and ' commissions on
their part but administrative lapses as well. This resulted in
providing employment to an undeserving candidate at the cost
of more meritorious candidates.
E 62. As already noticed, on the basis of the complaint
received by the State Government, inquiries were initiated by
the State Vigilance Bureau and some FIRs were also registered
including FIR No.15 of 2005. In this investigation, various
documents and evidence came to the notice of Vigilance Bureau
F and the investigating agencies, all of which were collected and
placed on record of this Court by way of affidavit, filed by PW 6,
namely, P. Raghavendra Rao, Special Secretary, Govt. of
Haryana. These allegations were found to be correct as reflected
in the report of the Deputy Inspector General, M.S. Ahlawat which
G is on record. In the affidavit of PW6, specific reference has been
made to the appointment of Pradeep Sangwan and the fact that
his certificat~ of experience was a forged certificate. PW26,
M.S. Ahlawat, stated that he had conducted an inquiry into the
aJie·gations levelled against Dr. K.C. Bangar, the then Chairman
H of t~e Committee. It was noticed in the inquiry that Pradeep
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 727
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Sangwan had produced a false certificate from M/s. Zee Drugs A
and that he was given appointment as an undue favour. During
this investigation, the statement of PW30, Bangti Jha, Quality
Control Manager in Zee Drugs, was also recorded who stated
that Pradeep Sangwan had not worked as Assistant Chemist
or Manufacturing Chemist in Zee Drugs during his period of B
appointment. In other words, definite documentary and oral
evidence had been produced on record to show that the
certificate annexed with the application of Pradeep Sangwan
was not a genuine one and, in fact, he was never employed by
M/s. Zee Drugs during the relevant period. It is, therefore, clear c
that he did not possess the requisite experience in terms of the
advertisement. ·
63. Another important aspect, which needs to be noticed,
is that, in his affidavit, PW20, Hazari Lal, Deputy Superinte·ndent
of Police (since retired} , has specifically stated that experts, D
invited by the Commission for this selection, were not provided
the original record despite demand. PW20 had also recorded
the statement of Dr. Mrs. Usha Satta, Senior Deputy Director,
Health Department in that behalf. In other words, the members
of the Selection Committee, namely, the private respondents, E
obviously favoured the selection of Pradeep Sangwan. PW2,
Sajjan Kumar, who: is Deputy Superintendent of Police had
investigated the matter and also filed an affidavit, the relevant
portion of which is stated as under :
F
1. That above noted case was registered following the
Vigilance enquiry No.5 dated 16.5.2005,
Chandigarh against Dr. K.C. Bangar, Chairman,
Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter
called as HPSC) and Sh. Pradeep Sangwan s/o
Moh.inder Singh Sangwan, Drug Inspector, Jhajjar G
rio Viii. Kohla, Distt. Sonepat and others. In this
enquiry, it was alleged that during August, 2004,
Haryana Public Service Commission advertised the
Post of Drug Inspectors in Health Department .in
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Haryana. The said Pradeep Sangwan also applied
for this post and submitted two different experience
certificates along with his application form. While
one of them was issued by Zee Drugs, Sikandara,
Agra (U .P.) , the other was issued by Janta
8 Pharmacy College, Bhutana, Distt. Sonepat, for the
same period (20.05.2001 to 20.05.2003 and 2001
to 2004 respectively) . It was alleged that he had also
drawn salary as Lecturer from Janta Pharmacy
College, Butana, Di.stt. Sonepat. He was called for
c interview by Haryana Public Service Commission
on 06.10.2004, whereas remaining candidates
were interviewed on 28/29.09.2004. Dr. K.C.
Bangar, Chairman, HPSC, who happened to be
resident of village Kohla, the viHage ofSh. Ptadeep
Sangwan , deliberately ignored the forged
D
experience certificate of Zee Drugs, Agra and
influenced the selection process and at!his instance,
the selection committee i.e. Members of HPSC,
selected Sh. Pradeep Sangwan by giving him undue
advantage and ignoring the claim of ofher suitable
E candidates.
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

8. That during the course of investigation, Sh. Rohtash
Singh, DSp, had recorded the statement of Dr. lsha
F w/o Dr. Hari Mohan r/o Rohtak on 09.08.05. She
stated that she had attested the experience
certificate of Pradeep Sangwan on the
recommendation of Sh. Mahender Singh r/o Garhi
Bohar. Mahender Singh had wrongly put the date
G as 28.08.04 on the experience certificate dated :
1
02.09.04, after obtaining my signatures. Mahender
Singh is father of Pradeep Sangwan, who was later ·
appointed as Drug Inspector."

H 64. The affidavits of PW2 and PW6, in addition to other
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 729
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
records , are the basic evidence, which has been produced by A
the State before this Court, to establish the approved article of
charge. It was contended on behalf of the private respondents
that these affidavits of the police officers and the statements
recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
are inconsequential in this inquiry and cannot be taken into 8
consideration by this Court. We are unable to accept this
contention . Though these statements are inadmissible in
evidence as far as a criminal trial is concerned, however, in the
inquiry before this Court and even in a departmental proceeding,
they can be considered to substantiate the facts which otherwise c
are being established by the concerned authority. We make it
clear that it is not only the statements of the Investigating Officers
and the witnesses which were recorded by him during the course
of investigation are not the only basis for which we are drawing
certain inferences. But they are certainly relevant considerations, D
which have to be kept in mind by the Court, while examining the
matter in its entirety to see whether the misbehaviour complained
of is attributable to and committed by the private respondents.
Conclusion of misbehaviour of the private respondents shall
further be substantiated by the fact that when the private
E
respondents were cross-examining PW20, they did not even
suggest that he had not recorded the statement of other
witnesses including expert Dr. Mrs. Usha Satta correctly or not
at all. On the contrary, the question was put suggesting that
statement of this witness was.recorded and a particular question
was not put to this witness. The following question and answer F
in the cross-examination completely demolishes the objection
now sought to be raised before us :
.Q . At the time of questioning of Dr. Usha Satta, did you
ask her as to whether in the interview on 28th and G
29th September, she had objected in writing that
the relevant certificates were not shown to her?
A. I had recorded her statement, in her statement she
had mentioned that she was not shown the
documents." H
73o· suPREME·couRr R~PoRrs [2o.1o1 14 (AboL~ ~s.c·.R.
. • ~· ~~~ '• : ! : .; : • • •I • ••

A · '65·, The ·chairman and Members of r the.-!Commission;~
tiarticularly, theM embers, who have 'attested and approved the
orders··o tslihimoning Pradeep Sangwan for:the:interview, should
have e·xerdsed greater degree.·of care in scrutiny.~ Further, the~
mattefought to have beerre·xamined by the~pri'late· respondents
:9 when~the complaint againsnhe· s-elected candidate was;made
ciriB copy thereof. was ~sent to the highest -:authority, im the
c 'o mmissionYan:d iri; thej State .Government!dt is a matter .of
common·knowledge and, in:fact, there is:no,dispute before .us
that the application and recbrd of the candidate are placed before
c the me·mbers of the Selection·cominittee at.the.time of.interview
of the candidate~ We fail tb·u·nderstand as to why the r)'lembers
of the·-Selectioh Committee idid ·not notice:that .the :application
had ·not been ·s'ubr'nltted ·before the ·Jast,pJescribed ;date,• i.e~
3rd September, ·2004 and :why respondent :·No.5 ..had ~put ~ his
, initials with the date·of 3rd September,.2004.when application
0
Was actually received on 9th September: 2004; particularly, when
this was apparent-from the first glance on theyer.y opening sheet
ofttie ·application 'forrh.~lt may be notlced~from · the record<that
't he receipt number and the date of. receipt;has been written:by
·the·receivingclei'k'agaihst:the printed column on each application
E form and on the application form ·of,Pradeep Sangwan.ih~as
wdften as receipt No. 713 dated 9th Septemberi 2004.·Another
facto-r, ·which would-substantiate lthat .this ·application was
received after the deadline,· is that the application --of the other
·recommended candidate was -received on 23rd August;-,2004
F against receipt' No. 226 ·and the entries were made in the.normal
course o'frbu·sin·ess. All.: these .facts ·and ·evidence, when
cumulatively examined, unambiguously show that the.se private
respondents h~~e faile~ to act judicious!y a~g. in accordance
~with · prir1ciples'.Of fairness.' They have failed' to' maintain the
G expected ·standard. of tr~hsparent and fair selection on merit.
The appli.catioh 'of Pradeep s'angwan was'liable·f() be rejected
at the very threshold in :terms of cbndition 'No. the General ·i oi
.Ciarifications·but the same was accepted and·he was called for
·interview and selected . rDespite ,. the ,complaint, which
H ···) 1\. .
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 731
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
subsequently was found to be correct, his name was also A
forwarded for appointment to the State Government. We are
not holding that furnishing of the false certificate by Pradeep
Sangwan was an act attributable to the Chairman/Members of
the Commission but its acceptance, despite the complaint and
the manner in which Pradeep Sangwan was selected and B
recommended for appointment to a very responsible post i~
the State Government, certainiy is clothed in suspicion and
favouritism. We are informed that Pradeep Sangwan is now no
longer in service , ... ,

66. As a result of th~· above discussion, we are of the C
considered view that the conduct of the Members of the '
·•.
Commission, in processing the application of Pradeep
J Sangwan, endorsing and approving his name for the interview.
I selecting him and finally recommending his name for
l ~. ~ ... appointment to the post of Senior Drug Inspector, does not meet D
the standards of behaviour, integrity and rectitude required to
be maintained by the office they were holding. Thus, their
behaviour with respect to this article of charge would certainly
I fall within the ambit of misbehaviour justifying their removal from
office. E

l
. -,-
Articles of Charge 3 to 5, 8 and 9
67. Approved articles of charge 3, 5, 8 and 9 pertaining to
alleged acts, omissions and commissions amounting to
misbehaviour have been framed against all the respondents in F
the present inquiry. However, article of charge 4 has been framed
only against Mehar Singh Saini, respondent No.1, who was
earlier Member and later appointed as Chairman of the
Commission. These approved articles of charge can be dealt
with together inasmuch as they are based on common
·...h
allegations, common evidence and with reference to the same
\ records produced by the State Government in support of the
'
allegations. In terms of Charge 3, Mehar Singh Saini and other
respondents refused to cooperate in the investigation carried
out by the State Vigilance Bureau in spite of directions of the
H

;uy, 1!<. . "'*" "' ,t?• .. .. ~ - . ). . ~
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A High Court and intentionally did .not supply the docume~ts
requested in furtherance to the complaints received by the
authorities in relation to selection made by the Commission.
While referring to the proceedings before the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in Writ Petition No.15390 of 2002, to which
a all the parties before us were parties, it has been stated that
these acts of manipulation and interpolations in the answer sheet
were carried out favouring certain candidates and, thus, there
was deliberate abuse of process of selection by Mehar Singh
Saini as Member of th~ Commission in selection for Haryana
c Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Other Allied Services
Examination, 2002. Approved article of charge 5 only expands
the scope of approved article of charge 3 as it states that
deliberate attempt was made by the private respondent to
withhold material . records which were required by the
investigating agencies to investigate the matter in furtherance
0
to the complaints received by the Government in regard to the
irregularities and illegalities committed by the then Chairman
and Members of the Commission in the selection for the year
2002. Approved article of charge 8, to some extent, is repetitive
and it refers to the proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana
E High Court in Writ Petition No .15390 of 2002 wherein reply was
filed on behalf of the Chairman and Members of the Commission,
only as an attempt to justify the manipulation and interpolations
committed in the course of selection. Approved article of charge
9 is again extension of/explanatory to abov~ approved articles
F of charge as it only refers to the resolution which were passed
by .the Chairman and Members of the Commission deciding
not to hand over the records to the investigating agencies upon 1
demand and despite directions. All these allegations of
commissions and omissions according to the State Government
G amount to misbehaviour within the meaning of Article 317(1) of
the Constitution and justify their removal from the office.
68. We have already noticed that the contention raised, on
behalf of the private respondents, is that the articles of charge
H are beyond the scope of Presidential Reference. There is no
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 733
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
evidence to support them and, in any case, the alleged conduct A
does not amount to misbehaviour as it was a legitimate right of
the Commission to claim privilege acting through its Chairman
and Members. Thus, the decision not to furnish the records to
the investigating agencies was justifiable.
8
69. In the preceding paragraphs we have already held that
this Court has jurisdiction to examine additional or explanatory
charges, records, documents, evidence and facts which may
come to light even subsequent to the Presidential Reference in
·exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under-Article 317(1) of the C
Constitution. They are not such independent articles of charge
to which there-is no reference in the entire record and/or are
likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent Chairman/Members
of the Commission. The cumulative reading of these articles of
charge shows that emphasis is on non-cooperation of the
Chairman and Members of the Commission in not furnishing D
the records, when it was demanded by the investigating
agencies. Further there has been an abuse of office of the
Chairman and Members of the Commission by withholding the
material records, passing resolutions contrary to law, filing
incorrect replies in judicial proceedings and lastly the E
manipulation and interpolations in regard to answer sheets of
the selected/non-selected candidates. More particularly,
reference has been made to the selections made in the year
2002. Before we examine the evidence on these charges, we
may refer to the points which emerge from these approved F
articles of charge :
(a) Whether during their tenure as Chairman and
Members of the Commission, the private
respondents· adopted a· non-cooperative attitude
and intentionally decided not to furnish relevant G
records to the concerned authQrities/investigating
agencies? · -

(b) Whether the right of privilege in terms of Section 123
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was available to H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the Commission acting through its Chairman and
Members? ,.
{c) Whether non-furnishing of documents or records to
the inquiring/investigating agencies, under the
pretext that the Commission is a constitutional
8 · ,_ authority and thus not amenable to investigation, was
a bona fide decision/resolution or it was an attempt
to cover up the misdeeds, omissions and
interpolations made in the process of selection?
Furthermore, if the records were made available to
c the agencies would it have exposed the
misbehaviour of the private respondents?
70. It is not in dispute that the Government as well as the
Commission had received various complaints in regard to the
0 process of selection as well as the selections themselves, made
by the Chairman and Members of the Commission to various
appointments in the State services. In furtherance to these _
complaints and the complaint made by Rakesh Walia in case
of appointment of Pradeep Sangwan to the post of Senior Drug
E Inspector, five different vigilance enquiries and two different FIRs
being FIR Nos. 15 of 2005 and 20 of 2005 were registered.
These cases were registered, primarily, on the ground that the
Commission had adopted unfair method of selection. Favorite
candidate~ were selected and it was also stated that there has
F been interpolation and manipulation of marks in the answer
sheets of the selected as well as non-selected candidates. In
furtherance to FIR No.15 dated 8th August, 2005, a charge-sheet,
for the offences afore-stated, had been filed before the Court of
competent jurisdiction on 30th August, 2006. Despite repeated
demands, complete records were not given to the investigating
G agencies. It is clear from the record that during the period 25th
May, 2005 to 5th July, 2005, the Vigilance Bureau issued as
many as 8 letters asking for the records in relation to different
inquiries. Instead of cooperating , the private respondents opted
to file a writ petition, through the Commission, being Writ Petition
H No.12593 of 2005, which was contested by the State. Various
· IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 735
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
complaints, reports and documents were produced before the A
High Court and ultimately in its judgment in Haryana Public
Service Commission (supra), dated 12th August, 2005, the High
Court clearly observed that the Commission could not claim
immunity from providing records, particularly, when the
investigations were in furtherance to the complaints of corruption B
against its office holders having received by the Government. It
will be useful to refer to the relevant part of this order of the High
Court wherein certain observations were made against the
Chairman and Members of the Commission and their claim of
absolute immunity was not accepted, which reads as under: c
"11. At the · outset we may notice that the petitioner/
Commission has tried to drag political considerations -by
insinuations at least. It has been pleaded that the present
Chairman and the Members of the Commission are
appointees of the previous "Indian National Lok Oat" D
Government and that after the elections, a new "Congress
Government" has assumed office. Although it has been
asserted that all the .persons i.e. the Chairman and the
Members of the Commission are non-political persons but
the insinuations and the attempt to politicise the whole E
controversy is loud and clear. The aforesaid attempt cuts
at the very root of the various arguments raised by the
Commission. As a constitutional body, it is not expected of
the Commission to bring in politics or rely upon the fact that
the ruling party in the State had changed. We can only F
express our disapproval for the aforesaid attempt made
by the Commission.
XXX XXX XXX
14. ..• It is not in dispute that the enquiries now being G
conducted by the Vigilance Bureau pertain to certain past
selections. From the communication received by the
petitioner-Commission, it appears that the action of the past
Secretary, the past Chairman and certain other Officers/
Officials of the Commission, are being probed with regard H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010)14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A to the serious charges. Under any circumstances, the
aforesaid enquiries cannot be taken to mean any erosion
of the authority of the Commission or its independence.
Even an expert and constitutional body like the Commission
is supposed to perform its duties, fearlessly and carry out
B selections on the basis of the best merit available. However,
if the aforesaid selections are alleged to be tainted and
based upon consideration other than merit, the
Commission cannot, in such circumstances, claim any
immunity ..No body has a vested right to perpetuate ill~gality
c or hide a scandal. All selections made by public servants
are supposed to be based upon competence, merit and
integrity. The allegations to be contrary would not only erode
the public confidence in the Commission but would also
result in merit being a casualty.
D 15.... Therefore, if a formal F.I.R. is reg istered, then even
as per the learned Counsel, the holding of the vigilance
inquiries could be justified. In our considered view, it would
embarrass the Commission, its Chairman and its Members
more rather than protect. Holding of the vigilance inquiry
E without registration of any formal F.I.R. , in our view is in the .
nature of a fact finding exercise. If after the aforesaid
exercise is undertaken, the commission of any criminal
offence is made out, the law will take it own course.

XXX XXX XXX
F
18. We find that the aforesaid contention of the learned
Counsel is also without any merit. There is no dispute with
the preposition (sic) of law that while exercising the power
of judicial review this Court would be slow in making
G competitive comparison of the selected candidates vis-a-
vis the unsuccessful candidates. To this extent reliance
placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Jasjit Singh
Sidhu 's case (supra) is wholly justified. However, we
express our inability to extend the aforesaid analogy any
further to hold that even in the case of corruption charges,
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 737
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
tainted selections, or any illegality, no investigation in the A
matter of selection, could be made. Accepting the aforesaid
argument would be perpetuating the tainted selections.
XXX XXX XXX
22. It is, thus, apparent that an effort has been made by the B
Commission to protect its Chairman and the members, who ,.
for undisclosed reasons have chosen not to directly
approach this Court. The commission which is a
constitutional body has unl)ecessarily filed the present .
petition to watch the interest of the Chairman and member, c
who have chosen to remain behind the curtain. The
Commission cannot equate itself, nor under the
Constitution of India can it be so equated, with its Chairman
and its members. The Commission has a distinct and a
constitutional identity, independent of its Chairman and o
members. It is, thus apparent that the present petition has
been filed at the instance of the Chairman and members,
although in the name of the Commission. We cannot put
any seal of approval to this act of the Commission."
71. The correctness and legality of the order of the High E
Court was challenged by the Commission before the Supreme
Court by filing a Special Leave Petition being SLP {C) No.18726
of 2005. The same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 19th September, 2005. It is useful to note a strange
behaviour on the part of the Chairman and Members of the F
Commission that they chose to file a separate application along
with the petition seeking leave of this Court to appeal against
the order of the High Court dated 12th August, 2005. The
permission prayed for, by the Chairman and Members of the
Commission , was declined vide order dated 28th October, G
2005. In other words, the order of the High Court and the
observations made by it, inter se the parties have attained
finality.

72 . We may also notice that, in the meantime, the
H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A candidates selected for the Haryana Civil and Allied Services
(Executive Branch) in the year 2004, had filed a Writ Petition
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying for
issuance of a writ directing the respondent to issue letters of
appointment to them on the premise that they had duly been
B selected to the service. The High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition noticing the fact that the elections in the State had been
announced and model code of conduct had come into force,
therefore, appointment letters were rightly not issued to them.
The order of the High Court was challenged before this Court.
c While dismissing the appeal this Court in Jitendra Kumar v.
State of Haryana [(2008) 2 SCC 161] noticed the disturbing
feature of non-cooperation by the Commission in the Vigilance
Enquiries and held as under: ·
•... we only hope and trust that a constitutional authority like
D the Commission should neither withhold any document nor
refuse to cooperate with the State Vigilance Bureau in the
matter of conduct of an inquiry. If the statements made by
the Commission are correct, they have nothing to hide. It
would be In the interest of all concerned including the
E appellants herein to see that the inquiry should be completed
at an early date."

73. It was argued that despite directions/observations of
the Court still complete cooperation was not extended and there
F · was con~cious decision taken by the private respondents, as ,.
the Cha1rman and Members of the Commission, not to
cooperate in the investigation which can be inferred as an
intention to cover up their own commissions and omissions
including mal practices in selections.

G 74. The other phase of non-cooperation appears to be
when, during the period 15th December, 2005 to 4th January,
2007, all the private respondents in the present petition passed
four different resolutions declining to hand over the records for
investigation to the concerned authorities. The stand taken was
H that it is a constitutional body and its record cannot be made
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 739
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
available to the investigating agencies even if such a demand A
-.... was made in furtherance to the complaints, vigilance inquiries
and First Information Reports. These resolutions were passed
referring to certain Special Leave Petitions penc!ing before this
Court, but strangely no reference was made to the Punjab &
Haryana High Court order dated 12th August, 2005 and/or that B
of this Court dated 19th September, 2005. Bare reading of the
~ ... resolutions, except resolution dated 4th January, 2007, clearly
show that there was non-application of mind. The alleged claim
of privilege did not find mention in them and the orders of the
Courts Including the highest Court of the land were ignored. The
investigating agencies had also demanded, by different letters,
c
the records in relation to FIR No.20 of 2005. While invoking the
provisions of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the agencies issued notice to the Commission but to no avail.
An application had also been filed by the State Vigilance Bureau
under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the D
'.l.
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate requesting production of
relevant record and for appropriate directions. However, this
application was vehemently contested by the Commission, at
the behest and at the instance of the Chairman and Members
of the Commission. The Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order E
dated 25th October, 2007 rejected the application filed by the
investigating agencies against which a revision was filed before
the learned Sessions Judge, who upheld the order of the Chief
.... Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 30th November, 2007.
Against the order of the Sessions Judge, revision was filed by F
State in the High Court which came to be allowed vide order
dated 1st April, 2008. In that order, the High Court had clearly
held that claim of privilege for non-production of documents with
reference to Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, 1972
-(:>
was not sustainable or justified. The Court further held that there G
was sufficient material on record to justify the issuance of search
warrant under Section 93(1 )(a) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and held that the State had the right to get the records
from the Commission for the purpose of investigation and on
latter's failure, the provisions of Section 93 of the Code of H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

·ACriminal Procedure were rightly invoked. It observed that the
Commission is a constitutional authority and it would not be in
the fitness of things that a search is conducted in its office, but
such a situation has been created by it. Liberty was granted to
the Commission to produce documents, records before the
8 Investigating Officer, Inspector of Police, Vigilance (Ambala
Range). Despite such unambiguous and clear directions of the
Court, the Commission, acting through the private respondents
failed to hand over the records but chose to prefer an SLP before
this Court being SLP (Crl.) No. 3649 of 2008. This Court on
c 16th May, 2008, granted stay of the operation of the High Court's
order. However, the matter continued to be pending for a
considerable time before this Court and this SLP was ultimately
withdrawn vide order dated 14th December, 2009. In the
meanwhile, as already stated, four new Members had been
appointed to the Commission in place of the Members whose
0 term had expired. These newly nominated Members had taken
a decision to hand over the record to the investigating agencies.
Fact of the matter remains that for a very considerable time
investigations were delayed and the guilty could not be brought
to book. There was definite non-cooperation on the part of the
E private respondents.
75. Pradeep Sangwan's case is just one of the examples
of improper selection made by the private respondents. The
Vigilance Bureau had instituted different inquiries. Enquiry Nos.
F 1 and 3 resulted in registration of FIR No.20 of 2005 and the
notices dated 21st December, 2006 and 4th January, 2007 along
with other letters issued to the Commission for making available
the records in question. Every possible effort was made to spend
public money, time and energy by the Commission to withhold
G the records rather than to provide the same to the investigating
agencies to ensure expeditious completion of the inquiry/
investigation. Avoidable impediments, with the aid of law or
otherwise, were created to ensure that the notices issued by
the authorities and even observation of the Courts were not
complied with. As far as the claim of the Commission with regard
H
.
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 7 41
· [SWATANTER KUMAR, J .]
to privilege over its documents is concerned, it stood finally A
concluded by the order of the High Court against which the SLP
was withdrawn. It is not for us to re-examine that issue, all over
again, in the facts of the present case. It is impermissible to
examine an order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court
which has attained finality inter-se the parties that too in a 8
collateral proceeding. This will be opposed to the doctrine
estoppel per rem judicatam.
76. We have examined in detail the evidence led in relation
to non-cooperation and the malo-animo of the Chairman/ C
Members with reference to the records before us, i.e., the
documentary and ocular evidence. PWs 6, 8, 13, 14, 20 and 27
have filed their affidavits. The collective reading of this evidence
along with documents which have been placed on record
establishes two facts:
I 0
1. That there was definite non-cooperation on the part
of the Chairman/Members of the Commission in
furnishing record and documents to the investigating
agencies; and
2. This attitude of the private respondents as well as ~
the claim of privilege lacks bona fides, much less
protects the constitutional stature of the
Commission.
77. PW6, P. Raghvendra Rao, in his detailed affidavit, at F
the very outset, denied the suggestion that FIRs were registered
as a result of political vendetta. According to him, there were
various complaints received by the Government which were
examined and FIRs were registered in accordance with law. He
has further stated that despite requests in writing and otherwise, G
records were not provided and when records were provided it
has come to light that there has been manipulation and ·
interpolation in the answer sheets and the entire selection
process adopted by the Commission through private
respondents for selection to various posts in the State cadre
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010]14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A was arbitrary and contrary to rules. In the case of appointment
to the post of Environmental Engineer and Assistant ...
Environmental Engineer certain candidates were selected by
the Commission, who admittedly were over age. The recruitment
rules in question and the advertisement had not empowered
8 the Commission to grant any relaxation in age limit. Despite
that the Commission, while recommending the names, issued
a corrigendum and made a reference for ex-post-facto approval ~.

for such relaxation. In addition to this, the Chairman and Members
of the Commission appears to have exercised influence over
c its subordinates to push through above noticed selections under
all circumstances. It is useful to notice that out of the four selected
candidates, three were over age but still were selected for that
post. PW29, Smt. Chandra Kanta Gupta, who was Dealing
Assistant in the Commission, stated that in order to prepare
and issue corrigendum to increase the age limit, in the post of
D
Environmental Engineer, she was called to the office by the PA
to the Chairman on a Saturday, which was a holiday. Such
corrigendum was issued despite the fact that there was no
Government approval for the same. Similar statement was also
made by PW12, La I Chand Sharma who was Officer on Special
E
Duty in the Commission. This may not be the specific charge
with which we are concerned but these are relevant attendant
circumstances which need to be noticed for examining the
genuineness of the reply filed by the private respondents before
F
the Court.
78. PW1. Patram Singh, Superintendent of Police, State
..
Vigilance Bureau had sworn an affidavit that he along with Deputy
Superintendent of Police. in furtherance of the order of the Court,
not only issued notices but also visited the office of the
G Commission with a request to furnish the records but no records
w_ere provi~ed to them. This witness also produced, along with
h1s affidavit, number of documents including compilation of
results for the year 2001 to 2004. As per the statement of this
witness. the marks of several candidates were either reduced
H or increased, without specifying any reason, much less as a
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 743
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
genuine necessity. Where such changes have been made there A
-:..., were no initials in some cases while in others, the initials were
in different ink and even by different persons. The marks had
been considerably varied and the persons who had got higher
marks in the written examination were given very low marks in
the interview and vice-versa. This obviously disturbed the inter B
.. se merit of the candidates. During the course of hearing we had
asked for the production of the original answer sheets of the
candidates, which were produced. In the paper of Public
Administration, the candidate with Sr. No. 1631 was originally
awarded 84 marks in the paper for attempting five questions.
The marks of this candidate thereafter had been scored out in
c
a different ink and were reduced to 68. This candidate had got
16 marks for writing an answer to question No.7. The figure of
16 marks was scored out and instead the candidate was given
'0' mark for the same. We have perused the answer to this
question. Compared with answers given by other candidates, D
-~
who have been awarded 16 or even more marks, the answer
cannot be termed in any way inferior to the answer of the other
candidates. Thus there appears to be no justification,
whatsoever, for awarding 0 mark in place of 16 marks, which
were originally awarded. Similarly, in the same paper a E
candidate with Sr. No. 1732 was original awarded, in all, 95
marks which were reduced to 84 by re-awarding marks in the
answers to three different questions. Neither the figure of 84 in
., the tabulated statement for awarding marks nor any of the
reduced marks in three questions are initialed by any examiner F
or appropriate authority.ln Haryana Judicial Service Examination
the candidate having Sr. No. 0150 had originally been awarded
58 marks which were reduced to 48 without any revaluation of
the answer sheet. A note was written at the back of the first page
~·;, of the answer sheet to say, "he has used English language while G
writing essay which is against the instruction as such
Commission may kindly decide the penalty". In a most arbitrary
manner 10 marks from the total marks were reduced. It was
expected that some responsible person in the Commission and/
or Examiner should have revaluated the answer-sheets to assess H

·--
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the penalty for partial use of some English words in the essay,
particularly, when in all the remaining questions the candidate
had not used any English word, as is apparent from the answer
sheet. These are some of the circumstances which clearly show
that if complete records were produced in time before the
8 investigating agencies/the State Government, that would have
exposed the malfeasances and misdemeanours committed by
the private respondents.
79. We may also notice that the investigating agencies have
received the reports of the forensic experts under Section 293
C of the Code of Criminal Procedure confirming that there are
interpolations, manipulations and alterations in the ·answer
sheets at various places.
80. Interestingly, the candidates who had scored very high
marks in the written examination were awarded low marks in
0
interview while the candidates who had not fa ired so well in the
written examination were awarded very high marks in the
interview. Ms. Mona Pruthi and Ms. Sonia Narang are the
candidates who got 544 and 537 marks, respectively, in the
written examination but were awarded 30 and 37 marks in the
E interview. In contrast to this Mr. Vatsal Vashisht, who got 507
marks in the written examination was awarded 92 marks in the
interview. Ms. Mona Pruthi and Ms.Sonia Narang, both were
declared unsuccessful in the Haryana Civil Services (Executive
Branch) and Allied Services Examination held by the
F Commission. But later Ms. Mona Pruthi topped the lAS
examination while Ms. Sonia Narang was selected for IPS. This
is certainly an indication of the arbitrary standards adopted by
the private respondents in the selection process and the fact
that the candidates were not dealt with equal hand and uniform
G yardstick.
81 . When all these facts are examined in their correct
perspective, it is obvious that withholding of record and non
cooperative attitude adopted by the then Chairman/Members
H of the Commission, we.re not for bona fide reasons and, much
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI , CHAIRMAN, HPSC 745
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
less, to protect the constitutional stature of the Commission. On A
the contrary, the image of the Commission has been lowered
in the eyes of the public and the rule of fairness and merit has
been substantially ignored in processes of selection for different
posts. It is true, and as argued on behalf of the private
respondents, that there is no direct evidence before us to show B
that these manipulations have actually been carried out by the
private respondents but it is equally true that they, being the
Chairman and Members of the Commission, were duty bound
to exercise proper administrative control to ensure judicious and
fair selection·and prevent any act of commission or omission c
which would diminish public confidence in the functioning of the
constitutional body. The claim of privilege for non-production of
documents lacks bona fide and was, primarily, intended to
withhold the records from the Investigating Agencies to cover
up the above misdeeds, irregularities and illegalities.
0
82. Another pertinent document, which has been placed
on record of this Court, is the report prepared by the counsel
appearing in the case, under the interim order of the Court
passed on 14th January, 2008 in Civil Writ Petition No.15390
of 2002 in the case of Karan Singh Dalal & Ors. vs. State of E
Haryana & Ors.. In this Writ Petition, the selection of the
candidates to the Haryana (Executive and Allied) Services was
challenged by the unsuccessful candidates on different grounds
including favouritism, discrimination and manipulations in results
etc. The relevant part of the said order reads as under : F
"All these ten persons, whose names have been given
above who got lesser marks in written examination had been
awarded more than 80% marks in the interview, whereas
the 13 persons named above, who had secured more marks
in written examination were given 20-30% marks in the oral G
examination.
How the marks in oral test were given to bring some of the
candidates who secured lesser marks in w ritten
examination over those who had secured more marks in H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the written examination, is a question which needs attention
of this Court.
In view of the facts narrated above, we direct the total
inspection of all the Roll numbers indicated above be
allowed to the counsel for the State as well as to the
B
petitioner . ... ,"

83. In furtherance to this order, the counsel had prepared
inspection the inspection reports dated 1st February, 2008 and
15th Febru~ry, 2008 and submitted the same to the High Court.
c In addition to pointing out the discrepancies, cuttings and
manipulations done in the marking of the answer sheets, other
irregularities were also pointed out. It was stated that some close
relatives of then Chief Minister, former Chairman, Dr. K.C.
Bangar and daughter of the DGP, M.S. Mallik were selected
0 with disregard to merit. The most important aspect, which would
clearly depict the defect in the process of selection, was that the
candidates who took the competitive examination were given
clear instructions that no candidate was to disclose his identity
in any form; writing of serial number of script or putting any type
E of mark etc. would amount to use of unfair means and the
candidates could be penalized even by cancelling the paper.
Contrary to these instructions, it was reported to the Court that
Anjana Malik (Roll No.81 083) and Pramod Kumar (Roll No.9172)
had disclosed their identity by writing their names or depicting
F particular signs on their answer sheets. Pramod Kumar had
used a symbol of 'Om' at the top of page No.1, 3 and 5 of General
Knowledge paper and, thus, violated the instructions. The record
of the judicial proceedings, which has been produced before
this Court with affidavit or even without affidavit, has not caused
any prejudice to the private respondents. First, they had full
G opportunity of defending themselves in the inquiry and second,
they were parties in the proceedings before the High Court. The
production of records , along with affidavit including the
statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section
161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, can be taken note of in
H this inquiry. Of course, reference to these proceedings is limited
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN . HPSC 747
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
to the purpose of examining the veracity of the evidence A
produced by the State in support of approved articles of charge
other than charges 6 and 7 which are beyond the scope of
Presidential Reference. We, certainly, are not expressing any
view whether, on the basis of these statements, private
respondents are even prima facie guilty of any offence in relation B
to those two charges.
84. It is clear from the record that the private respondents
chose to lead no evidence during the inquiry before this Court.
It was expected of the respondents to render some explanation
in their defence in respect of the allegations stated in the C
Presidential Reference and/or in the charge-sheet approved by
this Court. It is not that we are drawing any adverse inference
against the respondents for not leading evidence during the
enquiry but certainly it is a relevant consideration. The factors,
which could have been explained , were that who were D
responsible and in what manner with regard to alleged attitude
of non-cooperation, manipulations and interpolations made in
various examinations, the reason for recommending Pradeep
Sangwan for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector despite
· complaints as well as recommending overage candidates E
without any power or authority to relax age restrictions. Detailed
affidavits were filed by different witnesses on behalf of the State
Government but the private respondents opted not to file even
their own affidavits as evidence to refute or rebut these
allegations and contents of the evidence adduced on behalf of F
the State. Obviously, this Court, vide order dated 22nd April,
2009 granted liberty to the Chairman and Members of the
Commission to rebut the evidence led against them. For reasons
best known to them, they maintained silence in this behalf. No
effort was made by the private respondents to demonstrate G
before this Court as to what steps were taken by them, if at all,
to find out the persons responsible for such irregularities,
misdeeds and what steps they had taken during their .long tenure
as Chairman/Members of the Commission to remedy these
wrongs. The replies filed on behalf of these respondents have
H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A vaguely denied the artiCles and have attempted to justify the acts
of omissions and commissions on the ground that they were in
bona fide exercise of power vested in them as Chairman and
Members of the Commission. Such explanation ex facie is
unsatisfactory.
B 85. The above narrated instances clearly show that the
expected standards of performance and functions have clearly
been infringed by the private respondents. Objectivity has been
the victim in the process of selection as a result of the callous
attitude adopted by the private respondents. In view of the settled
C position of law, where instances of non-disclosure of likelihood
of the child of a Member appearing for the civil services
examination and a Member slapping the Chairperson of the
Commission have been considered as misbehaviour within the
meaning of Article 317 (1 ), then certainly, the present case
0 discloses misbehaviour of graver nature.
86. On a holistic view of the matter, it is apparent that
irregularities and acts of irresponsibility committed by the private
respondents delineate their misbehaviour in terms of Article
E 317(1) of the Constitution as it certainly lowers the dignity of the
Commission. The burden of proof applicable to such cases is
not that required under the criminal jurisprudence, i.e., to prove
the charge 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. Where the facts
supported by record point a finger at the Chairman/Member of
F the Commission with some certainty, it may amount to
misbehaviour in the given facts and circumstances of a case.
Rule of 'reasonable preponderance of probabilities' would be
the right standard to be applied to such cases. The Court is not
called upon to record finding of guilt as if in a criminal case. The
charge has to be construed in a liberal manner so as to ensure
G completion of inquiry in terms of Article 317(1 ) of the Constitution
while keeping in mind the constitutional stature of the office. The I
private respondents were certainly in a position to prevent most I
of the events which have occurred in the present case and have
tarnished the image of the Commission. In our view the maxim
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 749
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J .]
Qui non prohibit quod prohibere potest facere videtur would A
alter the equities against the private respondents . As stated In
Re Ram Ashray Yadav (supra) , absolute integrity and
impartiality is required to be exercised by the Chairman and
Members of the Commission to maintain the dignity of their
office. The Commission has been entrusted with the task of 8
selecting candidates to various posts under the Government and,
therefore, the function of the Commission is of great importance.
Most appropriately the words of Shri H.V. Kamath, Member of
the Constituent Assembly, can be referred at this stage:
"Whenever democratic institutions exist, experience has shown c
that it is essential to protect the public service as far as possible
from political and personal influences and to give it that position,
stability and security which is vital to its successful working as
an impartial and efficient instrument by which the Government,
of whatever political complexion , may give effect to their 0
policies." These were the expectations of the framers of the
Constitution from the Chairman and Members of the
Commission.
87. We have dealt with all the above points in issue together
for the purposes of convenience and to maintain continuity. We E
have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that the Chairman
and Members of the Commission (private respondents herein}
adopted a non-cooperative attitude and. declined to furnish
relevant records to the concerned authorities/investigating
agencies. Furthermore, passing of resolutions and resistance F
despite directions/observations of the Court to comply with the
notices issued by the investigating agencies to furnish records
are acts which lack bona fides. The claim of privilege was sought
to be invoked as a ploy to prevent production of records, which
would have exposed the irregularities, illegalities and G
manipulations in the process of selection. In the name of the
constitutional authority, the Chairman and Members of the
Commission certainly violated the expected standards of
behaviour. They not only adopted a non-cooperative attitude but
also unduly delayed completion of the inquiry/investigations
H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL. ) S.C.R

A which, in fact, are stated to be pending at different stages even
to this day.
88. In light of the above discussion now we·may state our
conclusions laconically and unambiguously as follows:
B 1. We hold that the State has failed to prove, even on
the rule of reasonable preponderance of
probabilities, Charge 1 of the articles of charge by
leading any cogent evidence or on any legal
principles.
c 2. We further hold that Charges 6 and 7 of the approved
articles of charge is beyond the scope of Presidential
Reference dated 31st July, 2008. Therefore, they
are not required to be examined by us in the present
inquiry.
D
3. Upon holding inquiry, in accordance with the
procedure prescribed, we return the finding that
private respondents , namely, Shri Mehar Singh
Saini, Mrs. Santosh Singh and Shri Ram Kumar
E Kashyap , who are Chairman/Members of the
Commission (presently under suspension) have
failed to maintain the required standards of integrity
and rectitude in performance of their constitutional
duties, expected to be maintained by the holder of
such coveted office. Hence approved articles of
F
charge 2 to 5, 8 and 9 stand established. As such,
the private respondents are guilty of misbehaviour
on these counts.
89. Thus, there exist justifiable grounds for removal of the
G private respondents from their respective offiqes in terms of
Article 317 (1) of the Constitution.
90. Resultantly, the Reference, made by the President of
India to this Court, is answered in the affirmative to the above
extent.
H
IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC 751
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
91. Lastly, we .[Jlake it clear that any observation made, A
findings recorded and conclusions arrived at. would in no way
affect any proceedings or investigation pending before the Court
of competent jurisdiction or agency, as the case may be. Subject
matter of those proceedings shall be taken to its logical end in
accordance with law without being influenced by the pre$ent B
judgment. None of the issues raised therein would be deemed
to have been directly or indirectly decided by this judgment. All
the parties concerned are free to raise all contentions and
objections, which are available to them in law, in those Courts/
fuffi. c
92. The Presidential Reference dated 31st July, 2008 is
answered accordingly in the above terms. This should be
transmitted to the President of India forthwith .

R.P. Reference answered. o