Court Must Embark On Fact-Finding Inquiry When Called Upon To Decide Reference Under Article 317 Of Constitution: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that when called upon to decide a Reference under Article 317 of the Constitution of India, the Court must embark on a fact-finding inquiry to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the allegations against the Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission (PSC) would amount to misbehaviour.

The Court observed thus in a Reference made by the President of India under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, pertaining to a member who was nominated to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) and there were allegations of misbehaviour against her.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar emphasised, “The Supreme Court, when called upon to decide a reference under Article 317 of the Constitution of India, must embark on a fact-finding inquiry to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the allegations against the Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission would amount to misbehaviour. Misbehaviour has been interpreted to have a larger ambit than misconduct at a somewhat normative level – every misconduct might be considered a misbehaviour but not every misbehaviour amounts to misconduct, since even acts which bring disrepute to the office of the Public Service Commission have been interpreted by this Court to be misbehaviour.”

The Bench said that instances of physical violence between the members, non-declaration of relatives participating in a recruitment process conducted by the Commission and attempting to influence the Commission to favour a particular candidate have all been considered as instances of ‘misbehaviour’.

Brief Facts

The Respondent namely Mepung Tadar Bage, Member of APPSC was caught in the crosshairs of allegations and accusations of misbehaviour for inquiry and report as to whether she ought to be removed on the grounds of misbehaviour. Allegedly, there was a leakage of the question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by the APPSC in August 2022, leading to the reference for the removal of Respondent who was a member of APPSC at the relevant time. She was appointed in the year 2021 under Article 316(1) of the Constitution. As per Article 316(2) of the Constitution, a member of the APPSC shall hold office for a term of six years from the date on which he/she enters office or until attaining the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. The APPSC consisted of five Members including the Chairman.

One of the candidates for the said 2022 examination submitted a formal complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, Itanagar, alleging that some questions of the paper for the said examination were leaked in advance by APPSC in conspiracy with certain coaching institutes, which were accessible to some candidates including him beforehand, and therefore requested to lodge an FIR. He further informed the Secretary, APPSC regarding such leakage, and requested for stay on declaration of the results until a thorough and fair enquiry has been conducted. Hence, an FIR was registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 406, 407, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against one teacher of a coaching institute. The exam was cancelled and the matter was transferred to the Special Investigation Cell (Vigilance). The same was then transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Chief Minister of AP requested the Governor to place the matter before the President for removal of the four members of the APPSC. In the meanwhile, three of them tendered their resignations. Therefore, the Respondent was the only remaining member.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “This Court has therefore given an extensive, wide and liberal interpretation to the term ‘misbehaviour’. Even though, generally, this Court has negatived allegations of misbehaviour against members of a Public Service Commission on account of lack of direct evidence linking such member to irregularities alleged, but where for instance in Mehar Singh Saini (Supra), on the basis of evidence the inaction and lack of due diligence of the Commission is absolutely glaring at a prima facie level and palpably illegal and reeks of favouritism, the Court has taken a view that even though there might be no direct evidence linking the members to the irregularities alleged, the responsibility of the members of the Commission cannot be washed away.”

The Court explained that the construction of the language used in Article 317 of the Constitution, if given a plain reading, makes it clear that removal and suspension of a member of a Public Service Commission is in personam and not of the entire PSC or its members as a collective entity.

“The inquiry and eventual recommendation for removal, if any, must be specific to the conduct of a particular office-bearer with respect to any act or omission constituting ‘misbehaviour’ done in their official capacity. For proving ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317 of the Constitution of India, in order to remove a Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission upon reference being made by the Hon’ble President of India, it is generally necessary to demonstrate with cogent material as per the procedure laid down that the conduct complained of and charges formulated are attributable to the individual in question”, it added.

The Court remarked that Civil Servants are indispensable to the governance of the country and the responsibility of efficiently and diligently implementing the laws has been bestowed upon them.

“Well thought of and planned policies can crumble, like a sandcastle, at the first hit of waves, if there isn’t a strong administration in place to implement them. In a lot of ways, the Civil Servants are the ambassadors of democracy; the first point of contact between the citizenry and the government. It is through them that the government is able to successfully implement the countless welfare schemes for the larger good of the public. It wouldn’t be out of place to note that the robust functioning of democracy lies steadfast on their shoulders”, it said.

The Court further observed that while the Framers of the Constitution recognized the prominence of the Civil Services in India, they were also keenly aware that these officers could be susceptible to the political powers of the day. Paramount pressure and burgeoning expectations of the citizens are some of the regular challenges that these civil servants are plagued with.

“It was to safeguard these officers from harsh rigours that come with a demanding job that the Constitution Framers envisaged the setting up of autonomous and independent bodies like the Public Service Commission at the Centre and in the States. Led by eminent members nominated by the government, these bodies govern the recruitment of civil servants and play a significant advisory role in their appointments, promotions, and disciplinary actions. To ensure these bodies remain completely impartial and free from any influence or outside pressure, Article 317 of the Constitution prescribes a stringent procedure for the removal of their members”, it enunciated.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Court said that in the criminal proceedings also, neither the Respondent has been made accused, nor anything has been indicated regarding her involvement in paper setting, moderating or leakage of any question paper and as such, charge in the reference has not been proved constituting any misbehaviour on the part of the Respondent.

“It is clear that the Respondent was appointed on 12.08.2021, which was after the alleged leakages since 2017, so also after the advertisement for the recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was issued. It is also clear from the Inquiry Report that the Respondent was not involved in the paper setting procedure for the Mains Examination. There is no evidence to prove that the Respondent had the sole responsibility to consider all these issues and consider bringing changes in the guidelines”, it also noted.

The Court added that such a charge is completely vague and the material brought does not evince any misbehaviour on the part of the Respondent since it is unclear how any irregularity in previously conducted recruitment processes can be attributed to the Respondent, who joined in the year 2021, which would prove that her conduct would fall within the contours of ‘misbehaviour’.

“… a bare reading of Article 317(1) of the Constitution would indicate that removal on the ground of misbehaviour is individual and not collective in nature. … Merely because responsibility was given to the Respondent to look into legal matters, would not make her responsible for every act conducted by the APPSC”, it held.

The Court was of the view that as a member of the APPSC, the Respondent was responsible for the work of the Commission and its duties coextensive with the Chairman and other Members, but she cannot be held liable in her individual capacity by carrying the weight of the entire Commission’s responsibilities exclusively.

“If the members of the APPSC who were allegedly collectively found involved in the paper leak as per the letter of Chief Minister, later resigned and got assignment of new post by the State, it is a question to ponder upon, which ought to be looked into by the State especially so when Article 319(d) of the Constitution of India bars members of a State Public Service Commission from taking up any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State after they cease to be in office”, it clarified.

Furthermore, the Court said that if the members were collectively involved, the act of the State Government bequeathing responsibility upon such members, giving them assignment of posts having responsibilities, clearly goes to indicate that there was nothing against the Chairman or any Member of the Commission showing their indictment in a personal capacity of committing any act or omission which may prove misbehaviour on their part.

“In our view, the act of the State requesting the Hon’ble President of India to initiate the removal of the Respondent is arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory. … Indeed, it is true that the members of the Public Service Commission must be put to higher standards and their conduct must be unimpeachable, but where the consequence of our fact-finding inquiry would be the removal of the Chairman / Member from a constitutional office, we must be abundantly cautioned and tread carefully”, it also held.

Conclusion

The Court observed that to conclude that the Respondent is liable for any of the allegations against her, it must be shown first that she had a duty which she failed to discharge or fulfil.

“When there is no evidence linking the present Respondent to the leakage of the question paper of the Mains Examination, summarily holding her responsible and seeking to remove her from office on the pretext of not maintaining confidentiality in the work of the Commission, it would further erode the roots of the Constitutional intent of Article 317 to protect the Members of the Public Service Commission from political pressure. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that as per the allegations, the working of the Commission is alleged to have been marred with irregularities from as far back as in 2017”, it added.

The Court said that the reference made by the President of India for the charges as alleged are not based on specific allegations against the Respondent in her individual or official capacity.

“In view of the foregoing, the inescapable conclusion on the allegations of charges as made in the reference is that the allegations have not been proved. In terms of Order XLIII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and answering the reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, this report with recommendation shall be sent to the Hon’ble President of India that the charges as alleged do not bring about any act of ‘misbehaviour’ by Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage for taking action within its contours. We further recommend that her suspension be revoked forthwith and she would be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court answered the reference.

Cause Title- In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1047)

Appearance:

Attorney General R Venkatramani, Senior Advocates Manish Goshwami, Nidhesh Gupta, AORs Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rituraj Biswas, Advocates Yashraj Singh Bundela, Raman Yadav, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Chitvan Cinghal, Kartikay Aggarwal, Mayan Prasad, Anshula Grover, Chandan Kumar, Japneet Kaurn, Vriti Gujarat, Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Abhishek Bhardwaj, Sujana Bardhan, and Ananyo Roy.

Click here to read/download the Judgment