2010 (11) TMI 944 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the existing Chairman and Members of the Commission ought to be removed from the office on the alleged grounds of misbehaviour? Whether there exist justifiable grounds for removal of the private respondents from their respective offices in terms of Article 317 (1) of the Constitution?

Issues Involved:
1. Independence and Integrity of Public Service Commissions
2. Qualifications and Appointments of Commission Members
3. Allegations of Misbehaviour and Corruption
4. Non-Cooperation with Investigations
5. Legal Standards for Misbehaviour

Detailed Analysis:

1. Independence and Integrity of Public Service Commissions:
The judgment emphasizes the historical desire of the framers of the Constitution to ensure complete independence, integrity, and fairness in the country's administration, particularly through the establishment of Public Service Commissions. These commissions are expected to adopt a fair and judicious process of selection to ensure that deserving and meritorious candidates are inducted into the services of the State. The judgment cites the case of Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman Bihar PSC, to underline the values of independence, impartiality, and integrity as basic determinants of the constitutional conception of Public Service Commissions.

2. Qualifications and Appointments of Commission Members:
The Constitution does not prescribe specific academic qualifications or experience for the appointment of members to the Public Service Commissions. The judgment notes that the qualifications, experience, and stature of the appointees were questioned, but it was found that there is no constitutional requirement for specific academic qualifications or experience for such appointments. The judgment emphasizes that it is the responsibility of the Parliament and the concerned Government to frame guidelines or parameters for such appointments.

3. Allegations of Misbehaviour and Corruption:
The judgment addresses serious allegations against the Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission, including acts of favouritism, discrimination, violation of rules, and corruption. Specific instances, such as the selection of Pradeep Sangwan for the post of Drug Inspector based on a bogus certificate, were examined. The judgment finds that the conduct of the Members of the Commission in processing the application, endorsing and approving his name for the interview, selecting him, and recommending his name for appointment, does not meet the standards of behaviour, integrity, and rectitude required to be maintained by the office they were holding.

4. Non-Cooperation with Investigations:
The judgment highlights the non-cooperative attitude of the Chairman and Members of the Commission in not furnishing relevant records to the investigating agencies despite repeated demands and court orders. The judgment cites the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which observed that the Commission could not claim immunity from providing records, particularly when the investigations were in furtherance to the complaints of corruption against its office holders. The judgment concludes that the non-cooperation was not bona fide and was intended to cover up the misdeeds, omissions, and interpolations made in the process of selection.

5. Legal Standards for Misbehaviour:
The judgment discusses the legal standards for determining misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. It differentiates between 'misbehaviour' and 'proved misbehaviour,' noting that misbehaviour is a term of wide connotation and must be construed liberally to encompass conduct that erodes public confidence in the functioning of the Commission. The judgment concludes that the conduct of the Chairman and Members of the Commission amounted to misbehaviour justifying their removal from office.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the State failed to prove Charge 1 regarding the qualifications and experience of the appointees. However, Charges 2 to 5, 8, and 9 were established, proving that the Chairman and Members of the Commission failed to maintain the required standards of integrity and rectitude in the performance of their constitutional duties. The judgment concludes that there exist justifiable grounds for the removal of the Chairman and Members of the Commission from their respective offices in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution. The Presidential Reference dated 31st July 2008 is answered in the affirmative to the above extent.

← Previous Next →