SPECIAL REFERENCE CASE NO. 1 OF 1983 versus SPECIAL REFERENCE CASE NO. 1 OF 1983

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 17-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. I OF 1983 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. PATHAK AND 
SABYASACHI MUKHARII, JJ. 
August_ 17, 1983 
639 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 317(1)-Scope of-Allegation of 
assault on the Chairperson by a Member of Public Service Commission-Reference 
by President-Procedure to beftJ/lowed-Supreme Court Rules-Order XXXVlll 
rule 2---Scope of 
The Chairperson of the Punjab Public Service Commission made a 
complaint to the President of India alleging that a certain member of the 
Commission had committed gross misbehaviour towards her by slapping her 
on her face in the ·presence of three other members of the Commission.· Jn 
rxercise of the power conferred by Article 317(1) of the Constitution, the 
President had referred for co'nsideration of this Court the question whether on 
the ground of gross misbehaviour the n1ember ought to be removed from the 
office of Member of the Public Service Commission. 
Certain persons who claimed to have knowledge of the incident filed 
their affidavits.· The Member's wife, who had also filed an affidavit, alleged 
that the then Chief Minister was not happy with her husband's appointment 
as a member of the Con1mission, that the Chairperson·s -husband, who was 
running dasses for training students for the Public Service Co1n1nission exami-
nations, wanted certain students of his to be favoured in these examinations 
and that when her husbap.d refuScd to accede to the _request he was falsely 
implicated in this incident. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
It was contended on behalf of the Member that before making th.e 
reference the President (1) ought to. have referred the case to a fact finding 
body to ascertain whether a primafaci"e case had beeD made out for obtaining 
F 
the report of this Court on the question of alleged misbehaviour and (2) the 
function of this Court is limited to determining whether the person concerned 
was guilty of misconduct of such a nature as would require his ren1oval from 
the office of Member of the Public S~rvice Commission. 
HELD : On the facts of this case, obtaining a preliminary opinion of 
G 
yet another biJdy would be need.less duplication of work and avoidable waste 
of public tilne and mOney. The power of the ·President to make a reference 
to this Court under Article ,317(1) js not subject to the condition precedent 
that he must first have the facts examined by son1e other body or authority. 
There is no justification for reading into the Article a provision which is not 
to be found in it, especially a provision in the nature of a condition precedent. 
R 
The material before the President was of a kind and nature enough to justify 
his opinion that a prilnafacie case existed for an enquiry and report b~ thl$ 
Court. [643 G-H, 644 A, C·Dj 
A 
·B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 S.C.R. 
(2) Th«i? e~quiry which this Court is _required to hold is not into the 
limited questioii Whet_h'er tiie charge of rDisbehaviollr 
1 was made out and 
whether the misbehaviour was of such a nature as to warrant his removal from 
office but iS all e~qUfry· illto the.facts thein~elveS and· facts ~lso sci as to enable 
this Court to pronounce Whether the aitegatioD.s levelled against the Chairman 
or:. Member were proved at all. The purpo!ie of this Article is to ensure 
independence of the members and to give protection in the matter of their 
tenure. Certain dignitaries of the State like Judges of this- Court and High 
Courts. the Comptroller and Auditor O-eneral and the Chief Election Com-
~iSSiOner can be rCffioveci from thCir Offices ollly in accordatlce ~ith the 
PrOc,e'dUre prescribei:t'hi.·tfte r~levant proVisions of the Constitutron. ·Jn fhe 
CaSe of MCnlb.ers Or the Pciblic SerVice Commission a higller d.egree of proteC.. 
tion is given by the ·elimination of political pressures in the matter of theh 
. removal. While in the case of these dignitaries removal on the ground of 
proved misbehaviour or fncapacity depe°ncJs upon the will of the Parliament, 
any allegation of misbehaviour made against Members of the Public Service 
Comrhission'has· to be ex3mined by this court on merits. 1t is impossible to 
accept that" this Court i'n.one case and the Parliament in the case of others 3.re 
en~rUst.ed by tJle ~onstitutt'o"n with tlie · lin1ited power of de"termining whether 
the facts fourid.by some other body establish misbehaviour in one case and 
misbf:ha~iour or iricapacit}. in those others. Their function is· to find upon 
facts and the

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