LexREFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ARTICLE 317 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF versus *
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 470 A REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 • UNDER ARTICLE 317 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950) JULY 8, 2009 8 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., DALVEER BHANDARI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: c Article 317(1) - Chairman, State Public Service Commission - Allegations of 'misbehaviour' against - Reference for inquiry and report whether Chairman, Chattisgarh Public Service Commission ought to be removed - from office on ground of misbehaviour - Held: Article 317 D does not define 'misbehaviour' nor does it enumerate what acts would constitute 'misbehaviour' - It is only after a fact ~ finding inquiry is held, it could be said whether alleged acts committed by Chairman amounted to misbehaviour - In the instant case, there is no merit in the allegations - All the charges leveled against the Chairman are baseless and there ,_ E is not even prima facie proof of misbehaviour much less .,.. proved misbehaviour on his part - The Chairman, Chattisgarh Public Service Commission would be deemed to have continued in his office till the time his appointment might F have come to an end, with all pecuniary benefits which would have been due to him but for his suspension. The instant reference was made under Clause (1) of Article 317 of the Constitution of India for inquiry and report as to whether the Chairman of the Ctiattisgarh G Public Service Commission ought to be removed from his office on the ground of misbehaviour. The charges .. against the Chairman were: (1) that he committed great irregulari~ies and mismanagement in the process of preliminary examination conductecj by the Chattisgarh H 470 . .- .J REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ART. 317 (1) OF 471 THE CONSTITUTION Public Service Commission for the year 2005, as for A General Studies paper there was a mixing up of model answer keys; (2) that he misused government vehicles, drivers and orderlies which were provided to him during his posting as Director General of Police and he did not surrender the vehicles nor did he relieve the drivers and B orderlies after his appointment as Chairman of Public Service Commission on 21.10.2004; (3) that he was staying in the Police Mess, still he claimed house rent allowance not admissible to him under law; and. (4) that in discharging his official functions as the Chairman of c the Public Service Commission, he acted in a dictatorial manner and his style of functioning was objectionable. Answering the Reference in the negative, the Court HELD: 1. Article 317 of the Constitution of India does D not define 'misbehaviour' nor does it enumerate what acts would constitute 'misbehaviour'. It is only after a fact finding inquiry is held, it could be said whether the alleged acts committed by the Chairman amount to 'misbehaviour'. The Chairman of the Public Service E Commission is expected to show absolute integrity and impartiality in exercising the powers and duties as Chairman. His actions shall be transparent and he shall . discharge his functions with utmost sincerity and integrity. If there is any failure on his part, or he commits F any act which is not befitting the honour and prestige as a Chairman of.the Public Service Commission, it would amount to misbehaviour as contemplated under the Constitution. If it is proved that he has shown any favour to the candidate during the selection process, that would G certainly be an act of misbehaviour. [Para 3) [475-F-H] 2.1. In the instant case, in respect of charge 1, it may be noticed that for the conduct of the examination, there is Controller of Examinations in the Public Service H 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. A Commission. The Chairman and other members of the Commission decide the policies regarding priorities and dates of examination. RW 2, who was the Secretary to the Governor, deposed that the answer keys and the questions got mixed up due to computer error. The 8 witnesses examined did not depose that there was any negligence on the part of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. It has come in evidence that on the basis of irregularities, a departmental inquiry was initiated by the then Controller of Examinations. In view of the C evidence adduced, it is clear that if any irregular!ties had taken place in the conduct of the examination, it was due to the fault of some of the officers of the Public Service Commission and not by tha Chairman of the P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.