REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA versus -

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 03-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' .. _,..( 
... 
,. 
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITU-
TION OF INDIA 
AUGUST 3, 1990 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950/Punjab State Public Service Commis-
sion (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958: Articles 317 and 318-
Member, Public Service Commission Removal of-Inquiry into con-
duct-Presidential Reference to Supreme Court-Whether becomes 
infructuous on expiry of term meanwhile-General law of master and 
servant applicable to government servants-Applicability of-Conduct 
of Member in slapping Chairman-Whether, amounts to misbehaviour 
rendering him liable to removal from office. 
The President of India made a reference under Article 317(1) of 
the Constitution to this Court for inquiry and report on the conduct of 
the respondent, a Member of the Punjab State Public Service 
Commission. 
In a letter addressed to the Governor of the State, with a copy to 
the Chief Minister, the Chairman of the Punjab State Public Service 
Commission complained that on 24.Jl.1982, while she was proceeding 
to her office from the Committee Room, along with the respondent and 
three other members. after interviewing candidates for certain appoint-
ments, the respondent, without any provocation, gave a full blooded 
hard slap across her face, "'hen she was discussing with him regarding 
his absence on previous days. The other three memebrs, who were jnst 
behind her, also addressed a joint letter to the Governor about the 
incident. Since the Governor was not available in the State, the 
Chairman and the three members reported the matter to the Chief 
Minister, and handed over the letters to him. Tbe Chief Minister 
forwarded the complaint to the Government of India and directed the 
Chief Secretary to take necessary action in the matter. The Chief 
Secretary recorded the statements of the members. Thereafter, the 
respondent received a charge-sheet from the Chief Secretary asking for 
his reply. Besides taking several objections, the respondent denied the 
version of the Chairman and claimed that during the course of the 
discussions, when the Chairman lost her temper and was going to attack 
her with a raised hand, he caught her hand to avoid attack and insult. 
The other three members generally supported the Chairman's allega-
tions. After considering the reply of the respondent and the statements 
577 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
of the three other members, the President of India made the Reference. 
--!-
This Court directed notice to be served on ali the five members of 
the Commission and they tiled their sworn statements. Affidavits were 
also tiled by several other persons who claimed to have knowledge of the 
· incident or of its background. 
B 
Overruling the objections of the respondent that since the inci-
dent, if assumed to be true, may lead to his indictment of having com-
~-
mitted a criminal act or in any event an act which may expose him to 
civil action, the Reference should not have been made by the President 
without fully satisfying himself (by getting the matter investigated) that 
c a prima facie case was made out and that this Court should not make an 
enquiry into allegatiions involving disputed facts as that may prejudice 
a future action in the ordinary civil ·or criminal court, this Court 
directed the District and Session Judge, Delhi to nominate an Addi-
tional District and Session Judge for the purpose of recording evidence 
and transmitting the same to this Court. Accordingly, the evidence 
D 
which was led before the Additional District and Sessions Judge was 
forwarded to this Court. 
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the Reference 
must be treated to have become infructuous and need not lie answered 
because the respondent's tenure had already expired and he could not 
~-
E 
be removed from his office and it was futile to examine the evidence 
recorded in the case in pursuance of the order of this Court and to 
record a finding on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made 
against him, that the period of six years had been rigidly fixed making it 
clear that the period should not be extended and the member, on the 
4
expiration of his term wool_!! be ineligible for reappointment and that 
F 
the principle as applicable to lhe Government servants in the discipli-
nary proceedings should be made applicable to the members of the 
.,J..., 
Public Service Commission also. It w

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