REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317 (1) NO.2 OF 2008 IN RE: MEHAR SINGH SAINI, CHAIRMAN, HPSC AND ORS. versus --

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 12-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Reference answered
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[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 
.of 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 Prevention 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.