REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA REGARDING ENQUIRY AND REPORT ON ALLEGATION AGAINST SHRI SHER SINGH, MEMBER, HPSC versus REFERENCE CASE NO. 1 OF 1995

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 654 · Decided: 29-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
REFERENCE CASE NO. 1 OF 1995 REFERENCE UNDER 
ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 
REGARDING ENQUIRY AND REPORT ON 
ALLEGATION AGAINST SHRI SHER SINGH, 
MEMBER, HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
JANUARY 29, 1997 
[A.M. AHMADI, C.J. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
.. 
' ' 
·~ 
-
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 317(1): Member, Public Service 
·-<: 
C Commission-Removal of-Givwui-Misbehaviour--Member attempted to 
influence result of candidate who appeared in an examination conducted by 
Commission-Held: Presidential reference answered in the affinnative that 
conduct of the said Member amounted to misbehaviour--Hence, it waTTanted 
removal of the said Member from Commission. 
D 
Practice and Procedure: 
Member, Public Service Commission-Procedure for removal 
of-Evidence-"Examination of-Held : Affidavits filed in Supreme Court 
treated as examination-in-chief and sitting Judge of High Court deputed to 
E record cross-"-Examination affidavits and cross-Examination considered 
while appreciating evidence. 
The President of India made a reference to this Court under Article 
317(1) of the Constitution as to whether SS, Member; Public Service 
Commission, "ought, on the ground of misbehaviour, be removed from the 
F 
office of the Member of the Commission". 
The allegation against SS was that he attempted to· influence the 
Commission for obtaining favors for his nephew who was a candidate for 
the Civil Service (Executive Branch) Examination. During the days of the 
written examination, SS had been bothering the Chairman at his residence 
G almost daily for some help to his nephew. The Chairman told SS that he 
could not think of any way of helping out his candidate in the written 
examination. SS had the audacity to suggest change of papers by speaking 
to the Secretary of the Commission who kept the sealed papers after their 
receipt or by manipulation of the fictitious roll numbers of the candidate 
H securing high. marks. The Chairman refused and told SS that no 
654 
... 
-
REF. U/A 317(1) OF C.0.1. REG. ENQUIRY AGAIN5T SHER SINGH, H.P.S.C. 
655 
'-~ 
manipulation of any type at any time would be allowed to be done by A 
anybody for any candidate~ This made SS unhappy and vindictive. SS had 
... 
also thrown hints to the Secretary to this effect but he too refused to oblige 
him in any manner. The Chairman in his resignation letter made the 
above allegations. 
The Governor of the State asked for the comments of SS to the 
Chairman's allegations. SS made counter-allegations that the Chairman 
and the Secretary committed procedural irregnlarities in conducting the 
examination. The Secretary did not keep the "key" (the document-contain-
ing clue to decoding of fictitious roll numbers into original roll numbers) 
B 
in a sealed cover and kept the "key" in a double lock. The Secretary was C 
transferred for this lapse and the new Secretary proceeded to compile the 
results. Further, the Chairman and the new Secretary opened the seal of 
the award list instead of opening it in presence of the two Members of the 
Commission who had signed the seal. SS also alleged that the Chairman 
acted at the instance of the then Chief Minister who wanted to remove him 
and appoint some other person of his own choice. 
D 
In view of the damage caused to the working of the Commission, the 
Chairman scrapped the examination after discussing the matter in the 
Commission's meeting. The Chairman, the then Secretary and SS were 
directed to file affidavits in this Court. A sitting judge of the High Court E 
was deputed to record cross-examination to each affidavit by the other 
parties. The enquiry before this Court was limited to the conduct of SS 
and whether he was ,!Witty of misbehaviour. 
Answering the reference in the affirmative, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The secrecy of the entire proceedings being so impor-
tant, it would have been desfrable if SS, instead of taking such keen interest 
in the whole affair, had shown aloofness and had kept himself away from 
handing of either the key or the award list. [670-D-E] 
1.2. The testimony of the 
then Secretary of the Public Service 
Commission is of much weight as he is an independent witness. After the 
key was sealed and signed by the Members in addition to the Secretary, 
the Secretary was transferred and the new Secretary compiled the results. 
F 
G 
For the irregularities committed thereafter the Chairman himself has 
assumed the entire responsibility stating he had dire

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