2025 Supreme(SC) 1271
J. K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. R Venkatramani, AGI Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr.Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Cinghal, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Manish Goshwami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Mr. Mayan Prasad, Adv. Ms. Anshula Grover, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Japneet Kaurn, Adv. Ms. Vriti Gujarat, Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Manu Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Sujana Bardhan, Adv. Mr. Ananyo Roy, Adv.
Judgement Key Points
- Supreme Court reference under Article 317(1) for inquiry into removal of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, Member of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), on grounds of misbehaviour related to question paper leakage in Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination on 26-27 August 2022. (!) (!) (!)
- Respondent appointed as APPSC Member on 12.08.2021, assumed charge on 13.08.2021; work allocation order dated 18.08.2021 assigned her Law & Judicial, all legal matters, and other departments, but not examination paper setting or confidentiality duties for the relevant exam. (!) (!)
- Complaint of leakage led to FIR, exam cancellation, Inquiry Committee formation on 21.09.2022; Committee report (06.10.2022) noted SOP lapses but no specific indictment of Respondent or individual Members for misbehaviour. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- CBI investigation identified Deputy Secretary-cum-Deputy Controller of Examinations as primarily responsible for leakage; Respondent not named in chargesheets. (!)
- Six specific charges in Presidential Reference (18.04.2023): failure to prevent leakage, prior leak complaints since 2017, no timely remedial guidelines changes, collective/exclusive responsibility for confidentiality (as legal matters in-charge), failure to finalize 2022 Guidelines, and not advising against abeyance of unfair means punishments. (!)
- Article 317(1) allows removal only on misbehaviour proven by Supreme Court inquiry; misbehaviour undefined but interpreted widely as conduct eroding public confidence, requiring cogent evidence of individual actions, not mere collective/institutional failures or negligence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Standard for misbehaviour: higher than ordinary misconduct, demands irreproachable conduct from PSC Members to maintain public trust; removal in personam, not collective. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Charge I (leakage connivance/failure to prevent): Not proved; Respondent not involved in paper setting/moderation per SOP/2017 Guidelines; no evidence of her role or negligence. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Charge II (prior leaks since 2017, no guidelines changes): Vague and not proved; Respondent joined post-2021, no specific duty assigned to her for changes. (!)
- Charges III & V (no remedial action/2022 Guidelines): Not proved; collective Commission decision to keep 2022 Guidelines in abeyance pending High-Level Committee; no individual duty on Respondent proved. (!)
- Charge IV (confidentiality failure, exclusive legal duty): Not proved; work allocation did not make her solely responsible; no SOP violation or evidence linking her to lapses. (!) (!) (!)
- Charge VI (abeyance of unfair means punishments): Not proved; quasi-judicial collective decision pending guidelines/information; no individual duty to advise against. (!) (!)
- No collective responsibility under Article 317; applies to Cabinets, not PSCs; requires individual culpability with evidence beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of probabilities. (!) (!) (!)
- Inquiry Committee report (basis of reference) lacked personal allegations against Respondent; State communications showed prejudice assuming Member guilt without evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- All charges vague, unsubstantiated by evidence/witnesses; no misbehaviour proved; Respondent suspended under Article 317(2) since 15.06.2023, entitled to reinstatement and benefits. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
CONSPECTUS
1. It is a fact well-known that Civil Servants are indispensable to the governance of the country. 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.
2. 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
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
