SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 400

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L.M. SHARMA AND P.B. SAW ANT, JJ.
IN RE REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Special Reference No. 1 of 1983 {Under Article 317(1) of the Consitution of India}, decided on August 3, 1990
Advocates appeared :
R.N. Mittal, Senior Advocate (Pradeep Gupta, Prakash Chandra, Ms Rekha Dayal, Ms Sarla Chandra and Girish Chandra, Advocates, with him) for the Petitioners;
Ashok Desai, Solicitor General, G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate (A. Subba Rao, Ms A. Subhashini, S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher, Atul Nanda and CM. Nayyar, Advocates, with them) for the Respondents.

Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, A.Subhashini, AMAN VACHHER, ASHOK DESAI, Atul Nanda, C.M.NAYAR, G.L.SANGHI, GIRISH CHANDRA, PRADIP GUPTA, Prakash Chandra, R.N.MITTAL, Rekha Dayal, S.K.MEHTA, Sarla Chandra

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 317(1) – Employment and Service matter – Alleged misbehaviour on part of Saini, a Member of Commission – Misconduct - Inquiry and report - According to the case of Smt. Chowdhary, a number of candidates for certain appointments were interviewed at Patiala - Thereafter Smt. Chowdhary along with Sri Saini and the other three Members of Commission left committee room and proceeded towards complainants office when a very unpleasant incident took place. Sri Saini had been absent on previous two days and Smt. Chowdhary, Chairman, enquired from him reason - She also asked him to inform her in advance whenever in future he had to remain absent - According to her further case, Sri Saini did not take the advice in right spirit and suggested that Chairman may put same in writing on which she wanted a clarification as to the matter she was being asked to put in writing - Held, Consistent evidence of three Members of Commission further indicates that an attempt to bring about a reconciliation by persuading respondent to tender an apology was made but failed - Chairman was under great stress both physical and mental and she had to be consoled by her colleagues - Now question is whether Sri Saini deserved to be removed on account of his conduct - Persons occupying high public offices should maintain irreproachable behavior - A certain minimum standard of code of conduct is expected of them - What may be excusable for an uneducated young man cannot be tolerated if a Member of a Public Service Commission is involved - In our view, Sri Saini miserably failed in maintaining standard of conduct expected of a Member of Commission and thereby brought great disrepute to his office - Hence Sri Sainis conduct amounted to misbehaviour within meaning of Article 317(1) of Constitution and it rendered him liable to be removed from his office of Member of Punjab Public Service Commission – Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.- This is a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution made by the President of India to this Court for inquiry and report on the complaint of Smt. Santosh Chowdhary, Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission alleging misbehaviour on the part of Sri Gopal Krishna Saini, a Member of the Commission.

2. According to the case of Smt. Chowdhary, a number of candidates for certain appointments were interviewed at Patiala on November 24, 1982 till about 1.15 p.m. Thereafter Smt. Chowdhary along with Sri Saini and the other three Members of the Commission left the committee room and proceeded towards the complainants office when a very unpleasant incident took place. Sri Saini had been absent on the previous two days and Smt. Chowdhary, the Chairman, enquired from him the reason. She also asked him to inform her in advance whenever in the future he had to remain absent. According to her further case, Sri Saini did not take the advice in the right spirit and suggested that the Chairman may put the same in writing on which she wanted a clarification as to the matter she was being asked to put in writing. She alleges that thereupon Sri Saini, without any provocation or any further conversation gave a full blooded hard slap across her face which not only stunned her but left her in great physical shock and pain. Other Members of the Commission who were just behind her were also shocked by this conduct. One of the Members led her to her office and the other two Members also later followed but Sri Saini disappeared from the scene. It is said that she sent her complaint in the form of a confidential letter addressed to Dr M. Chenna Reddy, the then Governor of Punjab, with a copy to Sri Darbara Singh, the then Chief Minister of Punjab.

3. Before proceeding further with the other details leading to the present Reference it may be stated that Smt. Chowdhary was appointed a Member of the Punjab Public Service Commission in February 1975 and as the Chairman on May 28, 1980. Sri Saini was appointed a Member on May 30, 1980. After the General Elections in Punjab Sri Darbara Singh became the Chief Minister of the State in early June 1980.

4. The Governor was not available in Punjab and, therefore, it is said that the complaint was forwarded to the Government of India by the Chief Minister on November 25, 1982. The alleged incident did not get any publicity for some time and a news item appeared in one of the daily papers for the first time on December 11, 1982. Sri Saini thereafter received a charge-sheet dated December 15, 1982 from the Chief Secretary asking for his reply. Besides taking several technical objections, Sri Saini denied the story of Smt. Chowdhary. The other three Members of the Commission, namely, Sri H.S. Deol, Sri M.S. Brar and Sri W.G. Lall, generally supported the complainants allegation. The presentreference was made by the President of India after considering the reply of Sri Saini and the statements of Sri Deol, Sri Brar and Sri Lall.

5. After the receipt of the Reference, this Court directed notice to be served on all the five Members of the Commission and they filed their sworn statements. Affidavits were also filed by several other persons who claimed to have knowledge of the incident or of its alleged background. The Attorney General for India and the Advocate General of Punjab also appeared to assist the court. It was contended on behalf of Sri Saini that since the alleged incident, if assumed to be true, may lead to his indictment of having committed a criminal act or in any event an act which may expose him to civil action, the reference should not have been made by the President without fully satisfying himself (by getting the matter investigated) that a prima facie case was made out. It was argued that this Court should not make an inquiry into allegations involving disputed facts as that may prejudice a future action in the ordinary civil or criminal court. After considering the question









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top