In re: Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC & Ors.
JUDGM ENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Historically, the constituent assembly debates reflect the desire of the framers of the Constitution to ensure complete independence, integrity and fairness in the country's administration. Besides discernibly stating the privileges, functions and responsibilities of the three paramount pillars of the Indian Constitution, i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary, the Constitution also provided three instruments to ensure proper checks and balances in the functioning of the Government. These organs are the Supreme Court to ensure proper administration of justice, the Auditor General to maintain the purity of the country's finances, expenditure and collection of taxes and lastly, the Federal Public Service Commission to maintain the purity and integrity of the country's services.
The Constitution, in Part XIV, provides for establishment of the Union and State Public Service Commission’s with the primary object of providing equal opportunity to the people of India in matters relating to appointment. Establishment of these Commissions is one of the important facets of the constitutional scheme. Public Service Commissions are expected to adopt a fair and judicious process of selection to ensure that deserving and meritorious candidates are inducted to the services of the State. This should not only be done but also appear to have been done. In re, Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman Bihar PSC [(2000) 4 SCC 309], this Court observed as follows: "1. Founding Fathers of the Indian Constitution relying upon the experience in other countries wherever democratic institutions exist, intended to secure an efficient civil service. This is the genesis for setting up autonomous and independent bodies like the Public Service Commission at the center and in the States. The values of independence, impartiality and integrity are the basic determinants of the constitutional conception of Public Service Commissions and their role and functions."
A clear distinction has been drawn by the framers between service under the Centre or the States and services in the institutions which are creations of the Constitution itself. Article 315 of the Constitution commands that there shall be a Union Public Service Commission for the Centre and State Public Service Commissions for the respective States. This is not, in any manner, linked with the All India Services contemplated under Article 312 of the Constitution to which, in fact, the selections are to be made by the Commission. The fact that the Constitution itself has not introduced any element of inter- dependence between the two, undoubtedly, points to the cause of Commission being free from any influence or limitation. The constitutional scheme contained in Articles 315 to 320 noticeably demonstrates not only the complete independence of the Public Service Commissions in discharge of their functions, but also ensures complete security and protection of tenure to its Chairman/Members. A very cumbersome process has been provided by the Constitution for the removal of the Chairman and Members of the Commission. This constitutional intent of ensuring autonomy is underscored by the fact that it is only where the Governor of the State makes a reference to the President of India, stating grounds of misbehaviour of Chairman/Member of the State Commission that the President may remove such a Chairman/Member but only after the Supreme Court of India, on a reference by the President under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, reports that the Chairman/Member ought to be removed on the ground of misbehaviour. Thus, the immunities enjoyed by the Chairman and Members of the Commission under the Constitution are far greater and cannot be impinged upon by the normal procedure of service law for dismissal of a civil servant under the Civil Services Rules for an alleged misconduct. Higher the public office, greater is the responsibility. The adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of functions of the Commission can result in defects not only in the process of selection but also in the appointments to the public offices which, in turn, will affect effectiveness of administration of State. Most of the democratic countries in the world have set up Public Services Commissions to make the matter of appointments free from nepotism and political patronage. For instance the Conseil d' Etat in France, which is composed of the cream of the French Civil Service, has acquired considerable veneration for its capacity to police intelligently the complex administration of the modern state. Justice J.C. Shah in his report on the excesses of the Emergency, struck by the "unhealthy factors governing the relationship between ministers and civil servants", recommended the adoption of droit administrative of the French model by the Government. He observed that the commitment of a public functionary should be to the duties of his office, their due performance with an emphasis on their ethical content and not to the ideologies, political or otherwise of the politicians, who administer the affairs of the State. Great powers are vested in the Commission and therefore, it must ensure that there is no abuse of such powers. The principles of public accountability and transparency in the functioning of an institution are essential for its proper governance. The necessity of sustenance of public confidence in the functioning of the Commission may be compared to the functions of judiciary in administration of justice which was spelt out by Lord Denning in Metropolitan Properties Co. vs. Lannon (1968) 3 All ER 304) in following words: "Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: `The Judge was biased.'"
The conduct of the Chairman and Members of the Commission, in discharge of their duties, has to be above board and beyond censure. The credibility of the institution of Public Service Commission is founded upon faith of the common man on its proper functioning. Constant allegations of corruption and promotion of family interests at the cost of national interest resulting in invocation of constitutional mechanism for the removal of Chairman/Members of the Commission erode public confidence in the Commission. Profs. Brown and Garner's observation in their treatise French Administrative Law, 3rd ed. (1983) in this regard can be usefully referred to. They said "the standard of behaviour of an administration depends in the last resort upon the quality and traditions of the public officials who compose it rather than upon such sanctions as may be exercised through a system of judicial control." Regrettably, the present case is one of many References made to this Court where serious allegations and imputations have been made against the Chairman and Members of the Commission in regard to performance of their constitutional duties. The omissions and commissions amounting to misbehaviour, allegedly committed by the Chairman/Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission have led to the Presidential Reference dated 31st July, 2008 in exercise of the powers vested in the President under Article 317 of the Constitution of India to this Court.
FACTS The facts, as gleaned from the reference, are as under:
The Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, `the Commission') was constituted by the Governor of State of Haryana in exercise of the powers vested under Article 316 of the Constitution by appointing its Chairman and Members, on different dates, during the period 7th June, 1998 to 4th May, 2002. The details of the appointees including date of appointment and their credentials are as follows:
Sl. No
Name of the Chairman/Member
Qualification Whether Past official or credentials non-official
Date of Appointment
Date of normal retirement/completion of term
Date of premature resignation
1.
Dr. Krishan Ph.D. Chander Banger, (Chairman)
Non- Vice official Chancellor, G.J. University
02-08-2000
1-08-2006
1.12.2004
2.
Sh. Narender, BA (LLB) Singh (Member)
Non- Journalist Official
03.07.1998
18.07.1998
-
3.
Sh. Dayal Singh, B.Sc. Engg. (Member)
Official G.M. Industries, Haryana
03.07.1998
18.07.1998
-
4.
Sh. Jagdish Rai, MA (Member)
Official Lecturer
18.07.1998
17.07.2004
-
5.
Sh. Mahender BA (LLB)
Official Teacher
28.02.2000
27.02.2006
07.12.2004
6.
Sh. Mehar Singh BA., MS Saini (Member)
Non- Private Official Practitioner
07.07.2000
06.07.2006
1.12.2004
7.
Sh. Gulshan LLB Bhardwaj (Member)
Non- Social Activist official
04.04.2001
09.08.2004
-
8.
Sh. S.K. Gupta, B.A. (Member)
Non- - official
04.04.2001
03.04.2007
05.07.2004
9.
Sh. Pardeep B.A. Chaudhary, (Member)
Non- Social Activist official
04.05.2002
03.05.2008
05.07.2004
The election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly was due in February, 2005 and the model code of conduct was imposed by the competent authority on 17th December, 2004. The Government started taking steps for appointing the Chairman/Members of the Commission just before the imposition of the model code of conduct and appointed the Chairman and Members of the Commission, official/non-official, between 5th July, 2004 and 15th December, 2004. Four Members were appointed to the Commission on 5th July, 2004, while Shri Mehar Singh Saini, erstwhile Member of the Commission, was appointed as Chairman of the Commission on 1st December, 2004 and on the same date wife of Dr. K.C. Bangar, erstwhile Chairman of the Commission, was appointed as Member of the Commission. Thus, by 15 th December, 2004, the Commission came to be reconstituted. Constitution of the Commission with the dates of retirements and credentials of its Chairman and Members respectively are as follows :
Sl. No
Name of the Chairman/ Member
Qualification Whether Past credentials official or non-official
Date of Appointment
Date of normal retirement
1.
Sh. Mehar Singh BA., MS Saini (Chairman)
Non- Private Practitioner
Official
01.12.2004
30.11.2010
2.
Sh. Dungar Ram, MA (Eng.) (Member)
Official Lecturer Govt. National College, Sirsa
5.7.2004
9.6.2009
3.
Sh. Chatter Singh, BE (Elect.) (Member)
Official District Transport Officer
5.7.2004
4.7.2010
4.
Sh. Yudhvir Singh, BA (Member)
Non- District Marketing official Enforcement Officer
5.7.2004
4.7.2010
5.
Sh. Satbir Singh, BA (Hons) Advocate LLB (Member)
Non- Advocate official
5.7.2004
4.7.2010
6.
Sh. Om Prakash BA (Member) LLB
Official District Attorney
10.8.2004
9.8.2010
7.
Dr. Ranbir Singh B.Sc. Hooda (Member) (Agronomy, M.Sc. (Agronomy, Ph.d, LLB
official Haryana, Agriculture University
10.8.2004
9.8.2010
8.
Mrs. Santosh M.Sc. B.Ed. Singh (Member) W/O Dr. K.C. Banger (Ex-Chairman)
Non- School Teacher official
1.12.2004
30.11.2010
9.
Sh.Ram Kumar MA Kashyap, (Economics) (Member) LLB.
Official Field Assistant in ESA Department
15.12.2004
14.12.2010
During its tenure, the Commission had made selections and recommended candidates for appointment to various posts in different cadres of the State. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Government that various irregularities and illegalities, such as acts of favouritism, discrimination and violation of rules/regulations had been committed by the Commission in the process of selection made by them. After conducting preliminary enquiries, the Government claims to have initiated vigilance enquiries as well as First Information Reports were registered for the alleged irregularities, illegalities and acts ofcommissions and omissions by the Chairman and Members of the Commission. This resulted in the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, writing a letter dated 18th December, 2006, to the Secretary to the Governor of Haryana, requesting him to refer the matter to the President of India at the earliest for removal of the Chairman and Members of the Commission in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India. It was averred that the Chairman and Members of the Commission were guilty of misbehaviour, as mentioned under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. It was also averred that they do not possess requisite qualification, experience and had been appointed to the coveted offices only to achieve political ends. In this letter, detailed facts were given about the qualifications, experience and credentials of the Chairman and Members of the Commission with definite emphasis on the fact that they had made appointments contrary to the rules and with favouritism. Their conduct in making selection to different posts was an exercise in subversion of the constitutional protections rather than sub-serving, the interest of the Constitution. After receiving this Reference, the Governor of Haryana, vide letter dated 16th January, 2007, forwarded it to the President of India with supporting documents and records for consideration. The
President, after examining the records, referred the matter to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution for inquiry and report, as to whether the existing Chairman and Members of the Commission ought to be removed from the office on the alleged grounds of misbehaviour.
In order to fully appreciate the subject matter of the present inquiry, it will be appropriate to reproduce the Reference dated 31st July, 2008 made by the President of India to this Court :
"WHEREAS the Governor of Haryana, vide letter dated 16th January, 2007 together with a reference from the Government of Haryana, has set out the grounds for the removal of the existing Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission under Article 317(1) on grounds of misbehaviour (A copy of the letter dated 16.1.2007 along with the copy of reference with annexures mentioned therein is enclosed), AND WHEREAS from the reference prepared by the Government of Haryana it appears that there were serious irregularities in the appointments made to the posts of Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission, which were made without due regard to their qualifications, experience, status and accomplishments, required for appointment to the said constitutional posts, AND WHEREAS from the reference prepared by the Government of Haryana it appears that S/Shri Mehar Singh Saini, Dungar Ram, O.P. Bishnoi and Chattar Singh, as members of the Selection Committee, recommended the name of Shri Pradeep Sangwan for the post of Drug Inspector on the basis of a bogus certificate for which an investigation was conducted by the State Vigilance Bureau, Chandigarh and subsequently an FIR was registered against these persons for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for which these persons were arrested and challan has already been filed in the Trial Court, AND WHEREAS from the reference prepared by the Government of Haryana it appears that Shri Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman and S/Shri Dungar Ram, Chattar Singh, Yudhvir Singh, Satbir Singh, Om Prakash Bishnoi, Ranbir Singh Hooda, R.K. Kashyap and Smt. Santosh Singh as Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission refused to co-operate in the investigation being carried out by the State Vigilance Bureau in spite of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in complaints regarding selections made by the Commission, AND WHEREAS I am satisfied from the above referred material before me that it is necessary that the said allegations be inquired into. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by clause (1) of the Article 317 of the Constitution, I, Pratibha Devisingh Patil, President of India, do hereby refer to the Supreme Court of India for enquiry and report as to whether the existing Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission, ought, on the grounds of misbehaviour, be removed from the office of the Chairman and Members of the Commission."
It is evident from the above-mentioned Reference that the Chairman as well as all the eight Members are alleged to have conducted themselves in a manner, which amounts to misbehaviour within the meaning of Article 317(1) and, thus, are liable to be removed from their office. We may notice from the second tabulated statement afore-referred that out of the nine Members, six have already vacated their office as their term of appointment to the Commission has ended by efflux of time. Thus, out of the nine appointed Members, presently only three Members are holding the office of the Chairman/Members in the Commission. However, vide order dated 9th August, 2008, passed by the Governor of State of Haryana, the Chairman and all the Members of the Commission were placed under suspension. While Mr. Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, Mrs. Santosh Singh and Mr. Ram Kumar Kashyap, Members of the Commission continued to be Chairman and Members of the Commission under suspension respectively till date, there other Members remained under suspension till expiry of their respective terms. Amongst other complaints, a complaint in the matter of the appointment of Pradeep Sangwan as Drug Inspector was also received and inquiry is stated to have been conducted by the State Vigilance 14 Bureau vide Enquiry No.5 dated 16th May, 2005, Chandigarh and subsequently FIR No.15 dated 8th August, 2005 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC (Indian Penal code, 1860) and Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at Police Station SVB, Rohtak. In the vigilance inquiry, Dr. K.C. Bangar, the then Chairman, Shri Mehar Singh Saini, former Member and present Chairman, Shri Dungar Ram, Shri Chattar Singh and Shri Om Prakash Bishnoi, Members of the Commission, were found to be involved in criminal conspiracy for selection of Pradeep Sangwan. With respect to other complaints, which have been received in relation to various selections, made by the Commission in respect of various civil posts in the State Government, the State Vigilance Bureau initiated different enquiries being Enquiry No.1 dated 16th May, 2005, Enquiry No.3 dated 21st April, 2005 and Enquiry No.4 dated 25th April, 2005. Enquiry Nos.1 and 3, related to allegations of corruption and irregularities in recommending candidates for appointment to different posts for the period 2000 to 2004, led to registration of FIR No.20 dated 18th October, 2005 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC , read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the investigations and enquiries above-referred, records were required by the investigating agencies and they wrote various letters to the authorities of the Commission to hand over the same for expeditious completion of inquiry.
However, it is the case of the Government and the investigating agencies that the Commission did not cooperate at all and the records, despite repeated demands, had not been handed over to them. As a result of non- cooperation by the Chairman and Members of the Commission, proceedings in the Court were initiated in which, ultimately, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Haryana Public Service Commission v. State of Haryana (Writ Petition no.12593 of 2005) [(2005)141 PLR 486], passed an order dated 12th August, 2005 making certain observations against the conduct of the Commission, its Chairman and Members. We will be referring to this order in some detail shortly. Against this order of the High Court, Special Leave Petition was preferred before this Court, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19th September, 2005. Separate proceedings were also initiated by the Member(s) of the Commission in their own right, who had prayed for permission to file Special Leave Petition, against the order of the High Court but the same was also declined by this Court vide order dated 28th October, 2005. 16 We have already mentioned that it is the case of the State Government that after noticing the irregularities and favouritism on a mass scale and on suspicion of serious charges of corruption against the Chairman and Members of the Commission, the Governor of Haryana had passed an order dated 9th August, 2008 suspending the Chairman and the Members of the Commission. The validity and legality of this order of suspension was questioned by the affected Chairman and Members of the Commission by filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court, which came to be dismissed by a detailed order dated 7th August, 2009 reported as Ram Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India [(2009) 9 SCC 378]. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: "16. It is very clear that since the Public Service Commissions are a constitutional creation, the principles of service law that are ordinarily applicable in instances of dismissals of government employees cannot be extended to the proceedings for the removal and suspension of the members of the said Commissions. Hence, we are of the opinion that the en bloc suspension of the 8 Members and Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission by the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana by an order dated 09.08.2008 under Article 317(2) of the Constitution and the impugned notification dated 09.08.2008 are valid and not liable to be quashed. The writ petitions are dismissed." 17 In view of the order of this Court, the order of suspension passed against the Chairman/Members of the Commission, the respondents herein, attained finality. As a result of various enquiries being conducted by the Vigilance Bureau of State of Haryana and other investigating agencies in furtherance to FIR Nos.15 and 20 of 2005 dated 8th August, 2005 and 20th October, 2005 respectively, various documents/correspondence and other evidence came to light which, according to the State, pointed towards the involvement of the Chairman and Members of the Commission in mal practices, favoritism and even to some extent corruption in the functioning of the Commission in making selections and recommending names to the State Government for appointment to various posts. These documents, along with certain additional charges, were placed on record before this Court. Only three articles of charge were stated in the Presidential Reference. However, during the pendency of the matter before the Court and because of subsequent events the State Government filed additional articles of charge. Six charges were sought to be added to the charge-sheet, in all bringing the total to nine. From the record, it appears that the matter was heard at 18 some length and on 22nd April, 2009, a Bench of this Court passed the following order: "Heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission, and also Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Haryana.
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel has objected to the draft charges Nos.1, 4, 7 and 8. The objections were regarding the very appointment of the Chairman as one of the grounds of misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India. It was argued on behalf of the State that the very appointment itself requires consideration, therefore, these draft charges require to be looked into. As regards other charges, it was alleged by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that many of the facts are not stated either in the Presidential reference or in the Governor's letter of reference in detail. However, State counsel replied that they have materials to substantiate all the charges. It is made clear that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission would be at liberty to raise legal objections at the time of adducing evidence on these draft charges. Draft charges are approved. The State is directed to file list of witnesses and documents by 15th July, 2009. Post on 21st July for further orders." In light of the above order, the parties were given opportunity to lead the evidence on all the nine articles of charge. The documentary 19 and oral evidence was led by the State and, as many as, 31 witnesses were examined. The Chairman and Members of the Commission did not examine any witness. It will be useful to refer to the articles of charge which were approved by this Court vide its order dated 22nd April, 2009. "1. That Shri Mehar Singh Saini is a beneficiary of favouritism and nepotism in the matter of his appointment as Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission. His qualifications, experience, status and accomplishments namely that of a private practitioner in Ayurveda (BAMS), were not of the stature required for appointment to the Constitutional position of Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission. His appointment, after obtaining resignation of then Chairman, was with a view to ensuring that he would further the objectives of the political party then in power. By, thus, conniving in the subversion of the constitution, he is guilty of misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. 2. That Sh. M.S. Saini, as a member of the selection committee, recommended the name of Shri Pradeep Sangwan for selection to the post of drug Inspector on the basis of the bogus certificate in which the charges of criminal conspiracy and indulgence in acts of corruption have been brought out against him. He has since been arrested and released on bail and the 20 final investigation report has been placed before the criminal court for trial. His involvement in a case of criminal conspiracy, which is pending trial, constitutes misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. 3. That Shri Mehar Singh Saini refused to cooperate in the investigation being carried out by the State Vigilance Bureau, ins pite of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in complaints regarding selections made by the Commission and his deliberate non-supply of documents needed in the inquiry and refusal to co- operate in the investigations. This constitutes misbehaviour within the meaning of Article 317(1). 4. That the bare reading of the contents of the additional documents placed on record, including inspection reports dated 24.1.2008/1.2.2008 and the interim order dated 14.1.2008, passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.15,390 of 2002, clearly established that the acts of manipulations and interpolations in answer-sheets of favourite candidates was deliberate abuse of the process of selection by Sh. Mehar Singh Saini as Member of Haryana Public Service Commission, in the selection of 2002 for Haryana Civil Services (Executive and Allied) Examination in the year 2002 and the same constitute an act of grave misbehaviour, warranting the invocation of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, for his removal. 21 5. That the acts of omission and commission of Sh. Mehar Singh Saini as Member of Haryana Public Service Commission and his subsequent act and conduct as Chairman of Haryana Public Service Commission in making deliberate efforts to with-hold the material record, which was required by the investigating agency to investigate the complaints received by the Government regarding serious illegalities and irregularities committed by the Chairman and Member of the Commission while making selections including the selection of 2002 for Haryana Civil Services (Executive and Allied), again clearly establish his grave misbehaviour as envisaged under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, warranting his removal.
That the malicious acts of influencing his subordinates to carry out intended manipulations to favour desired persons in selections and endorsement of such illegal selections as member of the Commission by Sh. Mehar Singh Saini constitute an act of grave misbehaviour warranting invocation of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India for his removal. 7. That Sh. Mehar Singh Saini abused his public office and showed his dubious act and conduct by defending the above mentioned patently illegal acts which constitute an act of grave misbehaviour warranting invocation of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India for his removal. 8. That Sh. Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman of Haryana Public Service Commission and 22 S./Sh. Dungar Ram, Chattar Singh, Yudhvir Singh, Satbir Singh, Om Prakash Bishnoi, Ranbir Singh Hooda, Smt. Santosh Singh and R.K. Kashyap wrongly and unlawfully decided to file a written reply on behalf of the Haryana Public Service Commission to the inspection reports dated 24.1.2008/1.2.2008 vide reply dated 25/2/2008 in CWP No.15390 of 2002, attempting to justify the illegalities regarding the manipulations, interpolations and forgeries committed during the selection process of Haryana Civil Services (Executive & Allied), which was finalized by the Commission in 2002. 9. That Sh. Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman of Haryana Public Service Commission and the members S/Sh. Dungar Ram, Chattar Singh, Yudhvir Singh, Satbir Singh, Om Prakash Bishnoi, Ranbir Singh Hooda, Smt. Santosh Singh and R.K. Kashyap had taken a decision not to hand over the record to the investigating agency on the pretext that the State Public Service Commission, being a constitutional authority, enjoys a distinct status, despite the fact that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court were pleased to direct the Commission to co-operate with the investigating agency. This deliberate act on their part clearly amounts to misbehaviour as envisaged under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India for their removal." 23 Thus, this Court has been called upon to examine whether the conduct of the Chairman/Members of the Commission amounts to misbehaviour in light of these approved articles of charge and the evidence produced on record, which would justify their removal in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution. The challenge by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of one of the respondents in the present Reference, to the additional charges, which have been approved by the Court, is, primarily, on the ground that the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 317(1) is a limited jurisdiction and the Court has to conduct its inquiry and record its finding in the report only in relation to the articles of charge referred to by the President in exercise of its powers under Article 317(1). Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the merit or otherwise of the said additional articles of charge. It is his submission that it is not an omnibus Reference. It is also contended that Charges 4, 6, 7 and 8 are new articles of charge and have no link to the referred charges and as such they are beyond the scope of Reference. Further, it is argued that there is no evidence on record to substantiate any of the approved articles of charge, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Court can examine all the approved articles of 24 charge. Thus, it is stated that the Presidential Reference to this Court is ex facie a case of no evidence but political vendetta alone. It was also contended that the entire evidence produced in respect of the allegations has not been tendered in accordance with law. A police officer cannot prove the allegations merely by filing an affidavit. Thus, it is no evidence in the eye of law. In regard to charge 1, relating to qualification and status of the Chairman and Members of the Commission, it is argued that this approved article of charge itself suffers from infirmity of non-application of mind as no qualification or status has been prescribed under Article 316 of the Constitution for such appointment. While refuting these arguments, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, argued that all the articles of charge can be gone into by this Court inasmuch as the charges are interlinked as well as they were duly approved by the order of this Court dated 22 nd April, 2009. According to him, though no specific qualifications have been provided under Article 316 of the Constitution, but keeping in view the constitutional functions of public importance performed by the Commission, it is expected that persons of adequate educational qualification, experience and proper status should be appointed to the 25 Commission. The respondents are alleged to have managed their appointments to the Commission as its Chairman and Members. In support of these submissions, reference has been made to the qualification of the Chairman, who was a private practitioner with degree of BAMS, while some of the Members were graduates only. The wife of the former Chairman of the Commission, on his exit, was immediately appointed as a Member of the Commission; and Mehar Singh Saini was appointed as Chairman on 1st December, 2004, the very date on which his term as member was to expire. These appointments, thus, have been made only for gaining political mileage and to make selections on the basis of favouritism and other extraneous considerations. According to the learned counsel there is sufficient evidence, documentary and oral, on record to substantiate and prove the approved articles of charge in accordance with law. With reference to the charge of non- cooperation, it is contended that despite the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the course of action adopted by the Chairman and Members of the Commission is not only misbehaviour but is contemptuous to the extent that it violates prudent norms of governance in accordance with law. The acts of favouritism, manipulation of records and the conduct of the Chairman and Members of the Commission are 26 unacceptable from constitutional functionaries and, therefore, they are liable to be removed from their office. We may notice that the learned counsel appearing for some of the other respondents principally adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, but added greater emphasis on the contention that exercise of right of privilege in relation to records of the Commission, being affairs of the State, was a justifiable claim. Further, the charge that the Chairman/Members of the Commission do not possess requisite qualification and experience is no charge in the eye of law that can be attributed to the private respondents, as the Constitution itself does not provide for any such qualification and experience. As such, both these charges cannot, in law, amount to misbehaviour as contemplated under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. Before we proceed to examine the merit or otherwise of the contentions raised before us as well as the evidence on each approved article of charge, reference to Article 317 of the Constitution would be proper. Article 317 reads as under: "Article 317 - Removal and suspension of member of a Public Service Commission-(1) Subject to the provisions of clause (3), the Chairman or any other member of a Public 27 Service Commission shall only be removed from his office by order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf under article 145, reported that the Chairman or such other member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed. (2) The President, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, and the Governor in the case of a State Commission, may suspend from office the Chairman or any other member of the Commission in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under clause (1) until the President has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference. (3) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), the President may by order remove from office the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission if the Chairman or such other member, as the case may be,-- (a) is adjudged an insolvent; or (b) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or (c) is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body. (4) If the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission is or becomes in any way concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of India or the Government of a 28 State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of clause (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour." A bare reading of Article 317 shows that the constitutional protection for the term of office of Chairman and Members of the Commission is provided to ensure independent functioning of the Commission. The working of the Commission and its Members has to be of impeccable integrity and rectitude. The object should be to provide the best persons from the available candidates for appointment in the State/Central cadres. This has to be done by adopting a judicious, fair and transparent method of selection, free of influence from any quarter in the Government or otherwise. That is why the framers of the Constitution clearly distinguished appointments to the Commission from appointments to the State Services or All India Services. The Members of the Commission cannot be subjected to regular departmental enquiries and can only be removed from their office by strictly complying with the provisions of Article 317 of the Constitution. This provision contemplates removal of the Member on two different grounds. First, where a Chairman or Member could be 29 removed on the ground of misbehaviour by the President only after making a Reference to this Court and where this Court has given a report, after holding inquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure, that the Chairman or the member ought to be removed on the grounds stated in that report. Second, by reason of automatic disqualification as provided under Article 317(3) and (4) of the Constitution. The President of India can act without any report from this Court in terms of Article 317 (3) and (4). Under Article 317(4), if the Chairman or Member of the Public Service Commission becomes interested or concerned in any agreement or in any profit thereof or commits any of the stated defaultss, then such Chairman/Member shall be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour for the purpose of clause (1) of Article 317. Article 317 thus provides for a complete and composite procedure, which is to be adopted by the President of India, before a Chairman/Member of the Commission can be removed from his office. Making Reference to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution invokes the Reference/Advisory jurisdiction of this Court. In the scheme of the Constitution relating to this aspect, it is clear that before the Reference can be made to this Court, certain procedure is required to be satisfied. The Governor, acting on the advice of the State 30 Government, would request the President for taking steps for removal of a Member in accordance with the provisions of Article 317(1) of the Constitution. There is requirement of proper application of mind by the President while making a Reference to this Court and it is but natural that Reference to this Court would be made only where the President is satisfied that a prima facie case of misbehaviour is made out. In light of the above provisions, it is obvious that normally this Court would follow the prescribed procedure and record its findings only on the articles of charge referred to by the President. However, in some cases, the Court may take cognizance and examine the articles of charge which are incidental/explanatory to the articles of charge mentioned in the Reference. In law, it may not be possible to examine charges which are entirely independent and unconnected with all or any of the articles of charge stated in the Presidential Reference. There has to be some link or inter-connection between the articles of charge subsequently suggested before this Court and the original articles of charge referred by the President. The question of any prejudice to the delinquent will not arise inasmuch as the concerned party is given full opportunity to challenge the articles of charge as well as the evidence 31 led in support of charges by the Government, during the process of inquiry before this Court. Article 317(1) requires that the inquiry held by this Court is to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf under Article 145 of the Constitution. Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to make rules, with the approval of the President, for regulating generally the practice and procedure of this Court. In turn, Article 145(1)(j) specifically empowers the Supreme Court to frame Rules, with the approval of the President of India, to regulate the procedure for enquiries referred to under clause (1) of Article 317 of the Constitution. Of course, such rules have to be subject to any law that may be enacted by the Parliament. The Supreme Court has framed the following rules under Part VI, Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 for conducting inquiry under Article 317(1) of the Constitution:- "1. On receipt by the Registrar of the order of the President referring to the Court a case for inquiry under article 317(1) of the Constitution, the Registrar shall give notice to the Chairman or Member of the Public Service Commission concerned and to the Attorney-General for India or the Advocate-General of the particular State to appear before the Court on a day specified in the notice to take the directions of the Court in the matter of the inquiry. A copy of the charges 32 preferred against him shall be furnished to the respondent along with the notice. 2. The Court may summon such witnesses as it consider necessary. 3. After the hearing of the reference under article 317(1) of the Constitution, the Registrar shall transmit to the President the Report of the Court. 4. No Court-fees or process fees shall be payable in connection with any reference dealt with by the Court under this Order." A plain reading of these Rules clearly shows that no detailed procedure has been provided so far, as to how and in what manner the inquiry shall be conducted and what shall be the scope of the inquiry and the manner in which the evidence shall be recorded. In other words, it has been left to the discretion of this Court to follow a procedure which is in consonance with the language of Article 317(1), read with the above Rules and principles of natural justice. Inherent power of this Court is wide enough to enunciate such a procedure, with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case, as Rule 6 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules specifically provides that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders, as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In the Matter of Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India [(1983) 4 SCC 258] (hereinafter referred to as `Reference 1 of 33 1983') this Court, while dealing with this aspect, clearly stated that the Court can appoint any officer of the Court, or direct an Additional/Sessions Judge or any other Judge, to record evidence. Evidence, as far as practicable, has to be recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and by way of filing affidavit, wherever directed, in view of the provisions of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After recording of e
