1. Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution to determine if the Chairman of a Public Service Commission should be removed from office on grounds of misbehaviour. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 641
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand, CJI., Doraiswamy Raju : S.R.Babu, JJ.
Constitution Of India
Versus
In R/o Dr.Ram Ashray Yaday: , Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission
Case No. : 1 of 1997
Date of Decision : 3/29/00
Advocates Appeared: Dhavan Rajeev : Dwivedi Rakesh : Katiyar Anil : Kaushik K.C. : Kumar Ravi Shankar : Mehra D.S. : Mehta Dhruv : Prakash Navin : Quadri A. : Rawal K.N. : Reddy V.R. : Salve Harish N. : Sibal Kapil : Singh Rajiv Kumar : Sinha Ajit Kumar : Sorabjee Soli J. : Verma M.L. : Wasim S.
The court held that for the removal of a constitutional trustee under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, "misbehaviour" requires evidence of personal mala fide intent or misfeasance; mere administrative lapses or following past practices do not justify removal from office.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 317(1) - Removal of Chairman or Member of Public Service Commission - Ground of misbehaviour - Constitutional trustees are expected to maintain the highest standards of independence, impartiality, and integrity, and their conduct must be exemplary, transparent, and objective (Paras 1, 4, 5).
(B) Misbehaviour - For the purpose of removal under Article 317(1), "misbehaviour" must be established through evidence of personal mala fide intent or direct influence; mere administrative lapses or adherence to past practices do not necessarily amount to misbehaviour warranting removal from office (Paras 32, 34).
Facts of the case:
A reference was made by the President to the Supreme Court to determine if the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission should be removed from office on grounds of misbehaviour. The allegations included showing special favour in candidate selection, instigating the State Government to file a false affidavit in court, acting arbitrarily in changing the mode of evaluation of examinations, and misusing official telephone facilities for personal purposes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Chairman was not present during the interview process in the selection charge and did not personally influence the outcome. Regarding the false affidavit, there was no evidence of instigation by the Chairman. The change in the evaluation system was found to be based on past practice and not motivated by mala fide intent. The telephone expenses were within the sanctioned budget.
Issues: Whether the specific allegations of favoritism, instigation of false affidavits, arbitrary administrative changes, and misuse of resources constituted "misbehaviour" under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while a constitutional trustee is subject to a stricter moral test than an ordinary person, the charges proved to be either baseless or mere lapses. In the absence of a specific indictment of personal misfeasance or mala fide intent, such actions do not meet the threshold of "misbehaviour" required for removal under the Constitution.
Result: No action called for against the Chairman.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Allegations of favoritism in selection, instigating false affidavits, arbitrary policy changes, and misuse of official resources versus claims of following procedure and lack of personal involvement. (Para 15 , 17 , 22 , 25 , 31 )
3. The Chairman's actions, while potentially lacking exemplary conduct, did not constitute misbehaviour as there was no evidence of personal influence, mala fides, or financial impropriety. (Para 21 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 )
4. Removal of a constitutional trustee under Article 317(1) requires established misbehaviour, not mere administrative lapses or adherence to past practices without proven mala fides. (Para 32 )
5. No charge of misbehaviour established; no action called for against the Chairman. (Para 34 , 35 )
6. What standard of behavior is expected from the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission?
They are constitutional trustees required to maintain absolute integrity, impartiality, and objectivity. Their conduct must be exemplary, transparent, and above board, adhering to a stricter moral standard than that of a common citizen. (Para 4 , 5 , 33 )
7. Does every administrative lapse or failure to exhibit exemplary conduct amount to misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution?
No. While constitutional trustees are held to high standards, administrative lapses or actions following past practice without proven mala fides or personal indictment do not necessarily constitute misbehaviour warranting removal from office. (Para 32 )
8. Can a Chairman be held personally liable for misbehaviour for signing a selection list if they did not participate in the actual selection process?
No. If the Chairman signs a final selection list in discharge of official duties but did not participate in the interview or influence the selection committee, it is conjectural to attribute misbehaviour to them. (Para 21 )
JUDGMENT
A.S.ANAND, CJI.
(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 an autonomous and independent bodies like the Public Service Commission at the Centre 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.
(2) THE Constitution has made provisions to protect civil service, as far as possible, from political or personal influence and give it that position of stability and security, which is vital to its successful working as an impartial and efficient instrument of the State.
(3) TO enable the Public Service Commissions to discharge their constitutional duties and obligations in a full measure, the framers of the Constitution not only armed them with enhanced powers and increased functions, but also provided security of tenure for the Chairman and Members. Strict judicial procedure contained in Article 317(1) and the Rules framed thereunder by this Court and the requirement that the President must have the supporting report of the Supreme Court in order to suspend or remove the Chairman or Member of a. Public Service Commission are undoubtedly intended to also provide safeguard to the Chairman and Members of the Commission against motivated or wrong charges of misbehaviour, in the larger interest of the administration of civil services in the country.
(4) 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 Public Service Commission are required to be selected on the basis of their merit, ability and suitability and they in turn are expected to be models themselves in their functioning. The character and conduct of the Chairman and Members of the Commission, like Caesars wife, must therefore be above board. They occupy a unique place and position and utmost objectivity in the performance of their duties and integrity and detachment are essential requirements expected from the Chairman and Members of Public Service Commissions.
(5) CHAIRMAN of the Public Service Commission is in the position of a constitutional trustee and the morals of a constitutional trustee have to be tested in a much stricter sense than the morals of a common man in the market place. Most sensitive standard of behaviour is expected from such a constitutional trustee. His behaviour has to be exemplary, his actions transparent, his functioning has to be objective and in performance of all his duties he has to be fair, detached and impartial.
(6) ARTICLE 317 of the Constitution of India deals with removal and suspension of Chairman or any other Member of Public Service Commission and lays down:
"317(1) - Subject to the provisions of clause (3), the Chairman or any other Member of a Public 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."
(7) IN exercise of the powers under Article 317(1) of the Constitution (supra), the President, Republic of India, on 22nd January, 1997 made the following reference to this Court for conducting an enquiry and submitting a report as to whether Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, ought, on the ground of misbehaviour, be removed from the Office of the Chairman of the Commission:
"WHEREAS Dr. Jagannath Mishra, then mla and Leader of the Opposition, Bihar sent a letter in
