Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"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.

Nine articles of charge were proposed to be framed and they were termed as draft charges, which we have already referred to in the earlier part of the judgment. They came to be placed for the consideration of this Court. Arguments were heard and vide order dated 22nd April, 2009, the draft charges framed were approved by this Court. Once the charges have been approved by the Court, the parties have gone to trial on all the approved articles of charge and have led evidence in support thereof. There can hardly be any bar for this Court to consider all the approved articles of charge. Besides this, the respondents were given liberty to raise legal objections at the time of adducing evidence on these draft charges. This liberty was granted on the contention raised that the referred articles of charge are not complete and several facts have not been stated either in the Presidential Reference or in the Governor's letter of Reference. In face of this order, we are afraid that we cannot accept the contention now that charges 4 to 9 need be excluded from the zone of consideration by this Court.

First, it needs to be noticed that the words `by conniving in the subversion of the Constitution' are introduced in the draft charges which, of course, stand approved by this Court. In any case, this is only an explanatory line and does not change the content and meaning of this article of charge, as stated in the Presidential Reference. The appointment to the office of Chairman and Members of the Commission is made by the Governor of the State in terms of Article 316 of the Constitution. Under proviso to Article 316(1), one half of the members of the Commission shall be persons who, at the dates of their respective appointments, have held an office either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State for at least 10 years, implying that the remaining half of the Members of the Commission can be appointed by the Governor in accordance with law. `In accordance with law' means that they are to be appointed on the recommendation of the State Government as the Governor has to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The provisions of Article 316 of the Constitution do not lay down any qualification, educational or otherwise, for appointment to the Commission as Chairman/Member. One-half of the Members of the Commission, as nearly as may be, are expected to fulfil the requirement of holding appointments under the State or the Centre for a period of ten years. These Members are termed as `Official Members' while the others are `Non-official Members' as already indicated by us above. Even for the Official Members no specific academic qualification has been provided. In other words, there is no constitutional requirement of any particular academic qualification for appointment as Official/Non-official Member of the Commission. Similarly, no specific experience of any number of years is required for appointment as Non- official Member. In the case of Jai Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1993) 2 SCC 597], this Court stated that it is clear that framers of the Constitution realized that to make the provision rigid was both inadvisable and unnecessary. The Court also demonstrated its impracticability. It can further hardly be suggested that the need to have 50% from the service category is of such paramount importance to the composition of the Commission that the breach of it, at any particular point of time, would defeat the very object of constituting the Commission. The purpose, for which the said provision is made, is obvious. It was realized by the framers of the Constitution that the democratic system can be maintained only if civil servants are appointed solely on the basis of their merit adjudged by open competition and only if they can carry on the administration according to law independently, instead of under pressure of their political superiors. Hence, they provided for Public Service Commissions at both the Union and State levels. Charge 1 alleges improper qualifications, experience and status against these private respondents. What is lacking has been left to imagination? Whether they do not fulfil the prescribed qualification or do not have adequate experience and stature, which they ought to possess, is again a matter of guess work. Whenever a charge of misbehaviour is framed, it needs to be specific in its content. If only vague averments are made without giving any particulars or even documentary evidence to support such a charge, the delinquent Member may not be able to respond to them properly. This may cause serious prejudice to the concerned Chairman/Member. Once a constitutional provision does not provide for any specific academic qualification or experience of any particular cadre, official post or stature in the private field that they ought to have held before their appointment to this constitutional office, then any such allegation will stare the State in face and it will be difficult for this Court to hold that these respondents are guilty of misbehaviour and can be removed from their office in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution. The learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently argued that even if the constitutional provisions do not provide specific qualification and experience, still this Court should lay down such prescriptions keeping in view the high constitutional office that the private respondents hold. According to him, the Court should, at least, state clear guidelines in that regard for appointment to such office. We may refer to the judgment of this Court in Reference No.1 of 1997 In the Matter of Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav (supra), wherein the Court emphasized that keeping in line with the high expectations of their office and need to observe absolute integrity and impartiality in the exercise of their powers and duties, the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission are required to be selected on the basis of their merit, ability and suitability and they are expected to be role models for the persons whom they are going to select for Civil Services. The character and conduct of the Chairman and Members of the Commission, like Caesar's wife, must therefore, be above board. They occupy a unique place and position; utmost objectivity in the performance of their duties, integrity and detachment are essential requirements for holding these high constitutional offices. Similarly, in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [(2006) 11 SCC 356], this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction was concerned with allegations against the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission that in discharge of his duties, he had selected persons for extraneous as well as monetary considerations during 1996 to 2002. For such conduct and selections, FIRs had been registered in that behalf while the selection of the appointed candidates was also challenged. While dealing with these allegations, the Court held as under: