In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs -

Held: In the present case, one can see that from the very inception, from the report of the Inquiry Committee, no specific allegation against the Respondent qua any of the six charges was levelled – Chapter 7 of this report, which forms the very basis of the present reference, merely makes some suggestions for improvement in the functioning of the APPSC and to adopt best practices – But it makes no adverse comment or personal indictment against the Respondent – In the present case, the letter of the Chief Minister to the Governor dated 27.10.2022 as well as letter of the Hon’ble Governor to the Hon’ble President of India dated 02.12.2022 impute responsibility for the leakage of the question paper for the Mains Examination upon the members of the Commission even though there was no such finding in the Inquiry Report – These letters further make it clear that the State dealt with the matter with a prejudice that the Members of the Commission were responsible for the paper leakage without sufficient material or evidence to reach such a conclusion – The actions alleged against the Respondent do not meet the threshold of ‘misbehaviour’, rather, they do not even meet the threshold of ‘lapse’ which has a lower threshold – It is not a case where the Respondent was unable to maintain the standard of conduct expected of a Member of a Commission and her actions alone brought disrepute to the APPSC – No overt act by her has been shown to meet the threshold of misbehaviour – When there is no evidence linking the 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 – Reference made by the Hon’ble President of India for the charges as alleged are not based on specific allegations against the Respondent in her individual or official capacity – Allegations which are general in nature, have not even been substantiated by bringing any cogent evidence and as such the allegations have not been found proved in the fact-finding enquiry conducted in exercise of powers under Art.145(1)(j) of the Constitution of India read with Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Allegations of charges as made in the reference 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 Respondent for taking action within its contours – It is further recommended that her suspension be revoked forthwith and she would be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits. [Paras 75-78, 80] Constitution of India – Art.317 – Removal and suspension of a member of Public Service Commission – What may constitute ‘misbehaviour’ under Art.317 of the Constitution – External aids to discern the meaning – Constituent Assembly Debates – Reports of Supreme Court in previous references and judgements – Misbehaviour & Misconduct through the lens of Legal Dictionaries – Discussed.

Held: 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 the Supreme Court to be misbehaviour – 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’ by the Supreme Court – Supreme Court has therefore given an extensive, wide and liberal interpretation to the term ‘misbehaviour’ – Even though, generally, Supreme 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, 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 – Construction of the language used in Article 317 of the Constitution, if given a plain reading, however, makes it clear that removal and suspension of a member of a Public Service Commission is in personam and not of the entire Public Service Commission or its members as a collective entity – 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, 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. [Paras 41, 42]

Constitutional bodies – Public Service Commission – Office of Chairman of Public service Commission and its Members – Significance of:

Held: The Public Service Commission is a Constitutional body which must, on one hand, be completely independent and without any obligation towards the Executive while on the other hand, its Chairman and members must be beyond reproach, with exemplary ethical and moral standards, in order to retain the faith of the common man in the process of selection and appointments to public offices – These Commissions were established as independent constitutional bodies to ensure that the process of recruitment in public service became insulated from political pressure and that recruitment to public administrative posts is conducted with utmost fairness and transparency – Their role is not merely administrative but also constitutional in nature, as they serve as sentinels of public trust in the civil service system – It is imperative for a Public Service Commission to discharge its duties with utmost impartiality, free from any extraneous and suspect influences that could compromise its integrity – Chairperson and Members of a Public Service Commission must conform to a standard of conduct that is unimpeachable in the eyes of law – Their actions, decisions, and even omissions must reflect the fairness, and highest degree of integrity inherent in these constitutional offices. [Paras 43, 44, 46] Constitution of India – Art.317(1) – Reference under – Scope and object – Discussed:

Held: Article 317 of the Constitution of India has been enshrined in the Constitution of India to afford greater protection to the Members of the Commission – The members, serving on an upper mantle, are susceptible to political pressure, and in order to safeguard them from the whims of the powers of the day, the Constituent Assembly, in their endless wisdom, had laid forth an elaborate procedure for their removal – Members of Public Service Commission can only be removed strictly by complying the rigour of Article 317 of the Constitution of India, and not through any regular departmental inquiry, thereby acting as a qualification on the doctrine of pleasure that is exercised by the President regarding various constitutional posts. [Para 18]

Words and Phrases – “misbehaviour” and “misconduct” – Misbehaviour is different from misconduct.

Held: Misconduct has an element of mens rea, whereas misbehaviour may include any conduct on part of the member which does not align with standards of the office – Misconduct may include graver acts or omissions whereas misbehaviour refers to a conduct which has the potential to destroy the faith in a public office. [Para 38]