# [1990] 3 S.C.R. 577

- **Citation:** [1990] 3 S.C.R. 577
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1990-08-03
- **Case number:** Special Reference No. l·of 1983
- **Bench:** Lalit Mohan Sharma, P.B. Sawant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1990-3-s-c-r-577-10769
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950/Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958: Articles 317 and 318Member, Public Service Commission Removal of-Inquiry into conduct-Presidential Reference to Supreme Court-Whether becomes
infructuous on expiry of term meanwhile-General law of master and
servant applicable to government servants-Applicability of-Conduct
of Member in slapping Chairman-Whether, amounts to misbehaviour
rendering him liable to removal from office.
The President of India made a reference under Article 317(1) of
the Constitution to this Court for inquiry and report on the conduct of
the respondent, a Member of the Punjab State Public Service
Commission.
In a letter addressed to the Governor of the State, with a copy to
the Chief Minister, the Chairman of the Punjab State Public Service
Commission complained that on 24.Jl.1982, while she was proceeding
to her office from the Committee Room, along with the respondent and
three other members. after interviewing candidates for certain appointments, the respondent, without any provocation, gave a full blooded
hard slap across her face, "'hen she was discussing with him regarding
his absence on previous days. The other three memebrs, who were jnst
behind her, also addressed a joint letter to the Governor about the
incident. Since the Governor was not available in the State, the
Chairman and the three members reported the matter to the Chief
Minister, and handed over the letters to him. Tbe Chief Minister
forwarded the complaint to the Government of India and directed the
Chief Secretary to take necessary action in the matter. The Chief
Secretary recorded the statements of the members. Thereafter, the
respondent received a charge-sheet from the Chief Secretary asking for
his reply. Besides taking several objections, the respondent denied the
version of the Chairman and claimed that during the course of the
discussions, when the Chairman lost her temper and was going to attack
her with a raised hand, he caught her hand to avoid attack and insult.
The other three members generally supported the Chairman's allegations. After considering the reply of the respondent and the statements
577
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R.
A
of the three other members, the President of India made the Reference.
--!-
This Court directed notice to be served on ali the five members of
the Commission and they tiled their sworn statements. Affidavits were
also tiled by several other persons who claimed to have knowledge of the
· incident or of its background.
B
Overruling the objections of the respondent that since the incident, if assumed to be true, may lead to his indictment of having com-
~-
mitted 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
c a prima facie case was made out and that this Court should not make an
enquiry into allegatiions involving disputed facts as that may prejudice
a future action in the ordinary civil ·or criminal court, this Court
directed the District and Session Judge, Delhi to nominate an Additional District and Session Judge for the purpose of recording evidence
and transmitting the same to this Court. Accordingly, the evidence
D
which was led before the Additional District and Sessions Judge was
forwarded to this Court.
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the Reference
must be treated to have become infructuous and need not lie answered
because the respondent's tenure had already expired and he could not
~-
E
be removed from his office and it was futile to examine the evidence
recorded in the case in pursuance of the order of this Court and to
record a finding on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made
against him, that the period of six years had been rigidly fixed making it
clear that the period should not be extended and the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,951 of 77,631. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39951 for what follows._

' .. _,..(
...
,.
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AUGUST 3, 1990
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950/Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958: Articles 317 and 318Member, Public Service Commission Removal of-Inquiry into conduct-Presidential Reference to Supreme Court-Whether becomes
infructuous on expiry of term meanwhile-General law of master and
servant applicable to government servants-Applicability of-Conduct
of Member in slapping Chairman-Whether, amounts to misbehaviour
rendering him liable to removal from office.
The President of India made a reference under Article 317(1) of
the Constitution to this Court for inquiry and report on the conduct of
the respondent, a Member of the Punjab State Public Service
Commission.
In a letter addressed to the Governor of the State, with a copy to
the Chief Minister, the Chairman of the Punjab State Public Service
Commission complained that on 24.Jl.1982, while she was proceeding
to her office from the Committee Room, along with the respondent and
three other members. after interviewing candidates for certain appointments, the respondent, without any provocation, gave a full blooded
hard slap across her face, "'hen she was discussing with him regarding
his absence on previous days. The other three memebrs, who were jnst
behind her, also addressed a joint letter to the Governor about the
incident. Since the Governor was not available in the State, the
Chairman and the three members reported the matter to the Chief
Minister, and handed over the letters to him. Tbe Chief Minister
forwarded the complaint to the Government of India and directed the
Chief Secretary to take necessary action in the matter. The Chief
Secretary recorded the statements of the members. Thereafter, the
respondent received a charge-sheet from the Chief Secretary asking for
his reply. Besides taking several objections, the respondent denied the
version of the Chairman and claimed that during the course of the
discussions, when the Chairman lost her temper and was going to attack
her with a raised hand, he caught her hand to avoid attack and insult.
The other three members generally supported the Chairman's allegations. After considering the reply of the respondent and the statements
577
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R.
A
of the three other members, the President of India made the Reference.
--!-
This Court directed notice to be served on ali the five members of
the Commission and they tiled their sworn statements. Affidavits were
also tiled by several other persons who claimed to have knowledge of the
· incident or of its background.
B
Overruling the objections of the respondent that since the incident, if assumed to be true, may lead to his indictment of having com-
~-
mitted 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
c a prima facie case was made out and that this Court should not make an
enquiry into allegatiions involving disputed facts as that may prejudice
a future action in the ordinary civil ·or criminal court, this Court
directed the District and Session Judge, Delhi to nominate an Additional District and Session Judge for the purpose of recording evidence
and transmitting the same to this Court. Accordingly, the evidence
D
which was led before the Additional District and Sessions Judge was
forwarded to this Court.
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the Reference
must be treated to have become infructuous and need not lie answered
because the respondent's tenure had already expired and he could not
~-
E
be removed from his office and it was futile to examine the evidence
recorded in the case in pursuance of the order of this Court and to
record a finding on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made
against him, that the period of six years had been rigidly fixed making it
clear that the period should not be extended and the member, on the
4
expiration of his term wool_!! be ineligible for reappointment and that
F
the principle as applicable to lhe Government servants in the disciplinary proceedings should be made applicable to the members of the
.,J...,
Public Service Commission also. It was also contended that the evidence
of complainant and other witnesses relied upon by her were not fully
consistent and that their case had been developing from stage to stage
which indicated its unreliable nature, and that several important docuG ments were not tiled in the proceeding by the State and Public Service
Commission in spite of repeated requests, which had prejudiced the
respondent.
.,,..---
Answering the Reference, this Court,
H
HELD: I. I The conduct of a Member of the Public Service
REFERENCE UNDER ARTK'LE 317(1)
579
Commission has been considered important enough to be directly dealt
with by the Constitution itself. The efficiency and purity of administration are greatly dependent on the right choice of the candidates to be
entrusted with official duty; and to ensure that suitable persons, in
whom the public may have full faith are selected, it was considered
necessary to have a body with members of integrity, sincerity and
practical wisdom capable of commanding the confidence of the people
for examining the merits of the candidates and make available to the
appointing authorities their conclusion. Taking into account the possibility of their being subject to pressure, they were given special protection by the Constitution under Article 317 prJviding that they-xcept
in cases covered by Clause (3)-can be removed from their office only
by an order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour after an
inquiry by the Supreme Court in this regard. The fact that the apex
Court of the country was entrusted with such a duty indicates the great
importance which has been attached to the office of the Member of the
Commission. Under clause (2) of Article 317, authority to suspend the
Chairman or Member of the State Commission pending an inquiry by
the Supreme Court has been vested with the Governor. Hence, the
conducl of a Member of the Commission under scrutiny of this Court in
a reference made by the President cannot be ignored on account of the
tenure being over. [58SB-E]
1.2 The Regulations framed under Article 318 by the Governor
do not and cannot deal with removal and suspension of a Member of the
Commission since they are exclusively covered by Article 317. The Constitution, while dealing with the removal of a Member of the Commission does not provide for extending the term of a Member pending
. enquiry into his conduct. The issue, therefore, niust be treated as a live
one even after the expiry of a Member's tenure. The President of India
has requested the Court to investigate into the conduct of a Member and
this Court ought to convey its conclusions rather than refuse to answer
the question. [583F-G; 586A-B]
·
1.3 The case of a government servant is, oubject to the special
provisions, governed by the law of master and servant, but the position
of Member of the Commission is different. The latter holds a constitutional post and is governed by the special provisions dealing with different aspects of his office as envisaged by Articles 315 to 323 of Chapter
II of part XIV of the Constitution. The reference will have to be
answered on the merits of the case with reference to the complaint and
the respondent's defence. [586D-E)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
R. T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 P.C. 27; State of
Assam and Others v. Padma Ram Sarah, AIR 1965 SC 473; Dinesh
Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam and Others, [1978] l SCR 607; B.J.
She/at v. State of Gujarat and Others, [1978] 3 SCR 553 and C.L.
Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, J.T. 1989 4 SC 182,
distinguished.
2.1 There is no dispute that. some Incident did take place on
24 .11.1982 in the Public Service Commission building. The respondent
was absent earlier which led to some discussion between the complainant Chairman and the respondent. According to the Chairman's
evidence, she received a hard slap across her face, altough she was
talking to the respondent politely. Her statement that the respondent
had slapped her without any provocation and that she was talking to
him politely cannot be accepted. The version of the respondent with
respect of the manner in which she was asking for his explanation may be
correct. She was used to her_ arrogant ways and authoritarian manner
while talking even with her colleagues, and hence the statement of the
respondent that she was assuming a bossy posture and was insisting on an on
the spot oral explanation from him may be correct. [583F; 582D; 60 ID-El
The evidence on record does indicate that the Chairman was
attempting to exercise her power in an authoritarian manner and lost
her patience even with her colleagues if she was not readily obeyed and
E
on more thau one occasion in the past she got annoyed with the other
Members and attempted to get them removed from the Commision.
However, the other three Members of the Commission have pleadged
their oath in support of the allegation that the respondent bad slapped
the Chairman. The circumstances in which the things proceeded also
corroborated their version. Over and above all this, the statements
F
made by the respondent himself go to support to a great extent the
complainant's case of physical assault. [598F-G; 599F-G]
All the three Members of the Commission are nnanimous and
emphatic in stating that the respondent did slap the Chairman hard on
her face. They also say that this was without provocation, which means
G
that there was no physical provocation on the part of the Chairman.
The three witnesses were cross-examined at great length and were sub-
+
jected to a very large number of searching questions. There is no mate_,.-
rial coming out of the same on the basis of which they can be discredited.
Though it was not a completely unprovoked situation in which respondent bad hit the Chairman, bis statement that the provocation was not
H
limited to a verbal duel and extended to the Chairman raising her hand
-
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) [SHARMA, J.]
581
as if to assault him, justifying him to slap her cannot be accepted as
correct. The Chairman ·did not attack or intimidate respondent with physical violence and the respondent losing his self-control at the arrogance of
the Chairman in her talk with him, slapped her. [601F-G; 603A-B; DJ
2. 2 Persons occupying high public offices should maintain irreproachable behaviour. A certain minimum standard of code of i:onduct
js ~xpected of tilem. Whai may be ncusable for an uneducated young
r ·· man cannot be tolerated if a Member of a Public Service Commission is
involved. Besides, the respondent and the Chairman were not thrashing
out a personal matter or a private dispute. They were discussing a
·question involving their office and this in. broad-day-light in the open
corrider of the Commission's building. Whatever the· provocation
offered by the Chairman, the respondent was not justified in losing his
. coot to the extent of indulging in physical violence. That the violence
-...,._ should have been directed against a lady makes his conduct all the more
reprehensible. The respondent miserably failed in maintaining the
standard of conduct expected of a Member of the Commission and
thereby brought great disrepute to his office. Hence the respondent's
conduct amounted to misbehavour within the meaning of Article 317(1)
of the Constitution and it rendered him liable to be removed from his office
of the Member of the Punjab Public Service Commission. [604G-H; 605A-B I
3. The refusal to produce the documents prayed for by the
respondent has not prejudiced him since he was not entitled to those
documents.
ADVISORY JURISDICTION: Special Reference No. l·of 1983.
(Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India).
R.N. Mittal, Pradeep Gupta, Prakash Chandra, Mrs. Rekha
Dayal, Mrs. Sarla Chandra and Girish Chandra for the Petitioners.
Ashok Desai, Additional Solicitor General, G.L. Sanghi,
A. Sobba Rao, Ms. A subhashini, S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher, Atul
A
B
c
D
E
F
Nanda and C.M. Nayyar for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
H
A
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R.
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
24.11.1982 till about 1.15 p.m. Thereafter Smt. Chowdhary along with
B. Sri Saini and the other three Members of the Commission left the
Committee room and proceeded towards the complainant's office
when a very unpleasant incident took place. Sri Saini had been absenC ~
on the previous two days and Snit. 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
c
D
E
F
G
H
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 Sain, 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 28.4.1980. Sri Saini was
appointed a Member on 311.5.1980. After the General Elections in
Pun;ab Sri Darbara Singh became the Chief Minist!r 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 25 .11.1982. The alleged incident did not get any
publicity for sometime and a news item appeared in one of the Jaily
papers for the first time on 11.12.1982. Sir Saini thereafter recei'cd a
charge-sheet dated 15 .12.1982 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, gener-
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) [SHARMA, J.I
583
ally supported the complainant's allegation. The present Reference 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 fiJed by several other
per~ons 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
tci 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
:m inquiry into allegations involving disputed facts as that may prejudice a future action in the ordinary civil or criminal court. After
considering the questions raised by Sri Saini at some length, this Court
by its judgment dated 17.8.1983 overruled the objections and directed
the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi to nominate an Additional District and Sessions Judge for the purpose of recording evidence and
transmitting the same to this Court. Accordingly, evidence which was
led before the Additional District and Sessions Judge has been
forwarded to this Court. The case, however, was not promptly listed
for final disposal under the wrong impression that it could be disposed
of only by a Constitution Bench which was not available on account of
more urgent cases.
6. Before the Additional District Judge a large number of
witnesses were exaiμined at considerable length. A number of documents and affidavit~ also form part of the records. There does not
appear to be any dispute that some incident did take place on
24.11.1982 soon after 1,00 p.m. in the Public Service Commission
building at Patiala. Sri Saini was absent earlier which led to some
discussion between the complainant Chairman and the respondent Sri
Saini. The parties however differ as to what actually happened at that
stage. According to the case of the complainant, she has reiterated her
earlier version as disclosed in the complaint. Mr. R.N. Mittal, the
learned counsel appearing for Shri Saini, has however attempted to
suggest that her evidence and the evidence of other witnesses relied
upon by her are not fully ·consistent and that their case has been
developing from stage to stage indicating its unreliable nature. A simiA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R.
Jar comment is made on behalf of the complainant on the evidence led by
Sri Saini. We will have to deal with the evidence at some length.
7. Sri. R.N. Mittal also contended that several important documents were not filed in the proceeding by State of Pun jab and the
Public Service Commission inspite of repeated requests which has
prejudiced Sri Saini. An application was moved before this Court for
a direction to produce a number of documents which was registered as
C.MP. No. 37191 of 1983 and was disposed of by the order dated
9 .12.1983 at pages 1023-1024 of Vol. VI of the paper book). While
dealing with some of the documents it was observed that the petitioner
(Sri Saini would be at liberty to contend during the hearing of the
Reference case that he has been prejudiced in his defence by reason of
the fact that he was not allowed to inspect them and if this Court
accepts that contention it may become necessary to allpw the petitioner to inspect those documents and to recall certain Witnesses for
futher examination. When the case was taken up before us, Sri Mittal
reiterated the stand of Sri Saini and explained the nature of the documents sought to be produced for inspection. We examined the matter
closely at considerable length and we do no agree with Sri R.N. Mittal
that the petitioner (Sri Saini) was entitled to inspect the documents
referred to above and the refusal in this regard has prejudiced him.
8. Sri R.N. Mittal next contended that the reference must be
E
treated to have become infructuous and need not be answered. As
provided in Article 316(2), the tenure of office of a Member of a
Public Service ·commission is six years (subject to reduction of the
period in case of the Member reaching the age of superannuation
earlier, which is not the case here). The term of office of Sri Saini was
to expire in May, 1986. The contention of Sri Mittal is that since his
p
tenure expired in 1986, Sri Saini cannot now be removed from his
office and it is, therefore, futile to examine the evidence recorded in
the case in pursuance of the earlier order of this Court, and to record a
finding on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against
him. Referring to the provisions of Article 316, dealing with the
appointment and term of office of Members, the learned counsel
G
emphasised the fact that the period of six years has been rigidly fixed
making it clear that the period cannot be extended and the Member on
the expiration of his term would be ineligible for re-appointment.
Reliance was placed on several decisions dealing with disciplinary proceedings against the govemn:ient servants, and it was argued that the
same principle should be applicable to Members of the Public Service
H Commissions. Reference was made to the decisions in R. T. Rangachari
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) (SHARMA, J.]
585
v. Secretary of State, AIR-1937 P.C. 27; State of Assam and Others v.
A
:::~Padma Ram Borah, AIE 1965 SC 473; Dinesh Chandra Sangma v ..
State of Assam and Others, [1978] 1 SCR 607; B.J. She/at v. State of
Gujarat and Others, [1978] 3 SCR 553 and C.L. Verma v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Another, J.T. 1989 4 SC 182. An examination cf
these decisions would show that the cases depended on the interpretation and effect of the relevant service rules dealing with the conditions
of service including provisions in regard to retirement and compulsory
_ _retirement. So far the present case is concerned, the conduct of a
-;[ Member of the Public Service Commission' is in question which has
been considered important enough to be directly dealt with by the
Constitution itself. The efficiency and purity of administration are
greatly dependent on the right choice of the candidates to be entrusted
with official duty; and to ensure that suitable persons, in whom the
public may have full faith are selected, it was considered necessary to
---,~ have a body with members of integrity, sinceriety, and practical
wisdom capable of commanding the confidence of the people for
examining the merits of the candidates and make available to the
appointing authorities their conclusion. Taking into account the possibility of their being subject to pressure, they were given special protection by the Constitution under Article 317 providing that they-except
in cases covered by Clause (3)-can be removed from their office only
by an order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour after an
_ ,..J._
inquiry by the Supreme Court in this regard. The fact that the apex
Court of the country was entrusted with such a duty indicates the great
importance which has been attached to the office of the Member of the
Commission. Under clause (2) of Article 317, authority to suspend the
Chairman or Member of the Commission pending an inquiry by the
Supreme Court has been vested with the Governor in the case of a
State Commission. If the position is examined in this background it is
difficult to suggest that the conduct of a member of the Commission
..)..
under scrutiny of this Court in a reference made by the President can
be ignored on account of the tenure being over. The Regulations
framed under Article 318 by the Governor do not and cannot deal with
removal and suspension of a Member of the Commission since they are
exclusively covered by Arlicle 317. Part V of the Punjab State Public
Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958, provides for the payment of pension with the proviso that a Member who
has been removed from office shall not be entitled .to the same. So far
- ---...
as the government servants are concerned, there are specific set of.
rules in regard to pension, inter alia dealing with cases in which
government servants are found guilty of serious charges oommitted on
B
c
D
E
F
G
the eve of their retirement. The rules governing many services also
H
A
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
I 1990) 3 S.C.R.
provide for extending the period of service of the government servant
with a view to complete a pending disciplinary proceeding. In the case-~-
. of a Member of the Commission, the Constitution, while dealing with
the removal of a Member, does not provide for such contingencies.
The issue, therefore, must be treated as a live one even after the expiry
of a Member's tenure. The President of India has requested this Court
B to investigate into the conduct of a Member and this Court ought to
convey its conclusions rather than refuse to answer the question. During the hearing of the case, we enquired from Sri Mittal, the learned
counsel for Sri Saini, whether, in the event of this proceeding being· T
dropped as suggested on his behalf, he is ready to give up his claim for
salary for the period he was under suspension and for pension, and Sri
Mittal after taking instructions froin Sri Saini, who was present in
C Court throughout the arguments, stated that the respondent would not
give up his claim and would demand arrears of his salary and pension.
9. The case of a government servant is, subject to the special
provisions, governed by the law of master and servant, but the position
D in the case of a Member of the Commission is different. The latter
holds a constitutional post and is governed by the special provisions
dealing with differettt aspects of his office as envisaged by Articles 315
to 323 of Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution. In our view the
decisions dealing with service cases relied upon on behalf of the
respon~
1
e
1
nht have bno applicatdion toh the presenfthmatter andh thef refer-
~-
E ence wt
ave to e answere on t e merits o t e case wit re erence
to the complaint and the respondent's defence.
10. The evidence which has been led in this case is voluminous.
The details dealing with the admission of evidence had been considered by this Court earlier and after considering the relevant Constitu-
~
F tional provisions, the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure and the
Supreme Court Rules, an order in this regard was passed on 17.8.1983.
J..
There is no grievance by the parties before us on this aspect, excepting.
G
the contention on behalf of Sri Saini that he has been prejudiced in his
defence on account of non-availability of a number of documents, with
which we do not agree.
11. We have gone through the entire evidence in the case and
have heard elaborate arguments by the learned counsel representing
the parties. The questions which have now to be answered are:
.r
(i) Whether Sri Saini had slapped Smt. Chowdhary and, if so, in
H
what circumstances?
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) [SHARMA, J.l
587
(ii) Whether Sri Saini acted in a manner which rendered him A
liable to be removed from his office of Member of the Punjab
Public Service Commission?
12. The allegation of Smt. Chowdhary which she made in her
letter dated 24.11.1982 has been mentioned earlier. The letter was
drafted by her in her office room immediately after the incident. B
Immediately thereafter the other three Members, Sri Deol, Sri Brar
T and Sri Lall drafted a joint letter addressed to the Governor, which
reads as follows:
"With great regret we saw a dastardly happening
today in the Commission premises. When we were walking
down the corridor from the Committee Room after the C
days interviews with the candidates, Mr. G .K. Saini was
walking ahead with Mrs. Santosh Chowdhary, the Chairman. She was apparently enquiring from him about his
absence from the interviews on the previous two days. Just
outside the Chairman's office, Mr. Saini asked the ChairD
man to give him in writing. Mr. Saini without any provocation slapped her right across the face.
This dastardly incident has left us all completely stunned and shocked. Apart from anything else, this transcends
all civilised behaviour not only to the Chairman of the
E
Commission but also to a lady who deserves the highest
courtesy.
We would like to place on record our great sense of
shock at this uncivilised and criminal behaviour. We
humbly submit that we would not like to sit on the ComF
mission with Mr. G.K. Saini. We strongly urge that action
may kindly be taken to have him removed from such a high
office forthwith."
It was decided :iy all four of them, that is, the Chairman and the three
Members, to report the matter personally to the Governor and with
G
that view they all proceeded to Chandigarh. The Governor was, how-
- --..,.._.ever, not available before the 1st of December, 1982, and the matter
was reported to the Chief Minister Sri Darbara Singh and the letters
were handed over to him. The Chief Minister called Sri K.D.
Vasudeva, Chief Secretary, and directed him to take necessary action.
Sri Deol, Sri Brar and Sri Lall ·also made statements before the Chief
H
A
B
c
D
E.
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
Secretary on solemn affirmation on 20.12.1982 which were recorded_ {-
by the Chief Secretary and signed by the Members respectively.
According to the statements before the Chief Secretary, Sri Deol, and
Sri Lall suggested to Sri Saini that he should immediately apologise to
Smt. Chowdhary but he refused to do so. In the meantime Sri Brar
accompanied Smt. Chowdhary into her room where the other two
Members also joined them, after leaving behind Sri Saini in his room.
Sir Deol further stated that when he asked Sri Saini as to why did he
behave in the rude and uncultured manner, he replied in Punjabi that- --....,..
"this is the way we do it". They all insisted that without any provocation from Smt. Chowdhary Sri Saini had slapped her. In respect to the
letter dated 15.12.1982 of the Chief Secretary, Sri Saini, vide letter
dated 24.12.1982, besides taking preliminary objection to the said
letter which was in substance a show cause notice, placed his version of
the incident in the following words:
"On 24. 11.1982, when we came out of the Committee
Room, she took me ahead of all other Members since she
said that-she wanted to talk to me alone, so that other
members could P.ot hear. I followed her. She demanded
explanation as to why I had not attended the meetings on
the preceding two days. I told her that I had informed her
in advance. But she insisted that the application should
have .been submitted and got sanctioned from her in
advance. I told her that she was proct. ding against the
decision of the Public Service Commission taken around
July 1981 by all the members. I told her to give in writing,
so that I could seek a fresh mandate. I told her that the
Chairman alone could not overrule the decision of all the
members. She felt I was challenging her seniority. She lost
temper and was going to attack me with a raised hand,
when I caught her hand to avoid attack and insult. It is
absolutely incorrect that I gave any slap or in any other
manner attacked her.
The other members, who were at some distance,
reached later. Some candidates, who had come for interview that day and some office staff had reached earlier and
separated us.
Sarvshri H.S. Deol and W.G. Lall took me aside and
asked me to go to the Chairman, who, they said was a lady.
I told them that I have been wronged but they should not
-'r---
1
-.,. ---.,. __
.REFERENCE UNDER AR11CLE 317(1) [SHARMA. J.J
589
add insult to injury by making me to go to the Chairman."
He told the Chief Secretary that he came from a renowned family of
lawyers and that his elder brother had held a judicial post for three
decades and had retired from the post of District and Sessions Judge.
He was himself a lawyer of 18 years standing and was of a cool temperament never losing his temper which would be supported by the
members of the public. He further said that his relations with Smt.
Chowdhary, who was his neighbour, were most cordial, and the two
families were on visiting terms. When his son was involved in a road
accident Smt. Chowdhary was very sympathetic and helpful to him and
the two had been going to the office on many occasions in the same
car. However, the unfortunate incident happened mainly due to the
temperament of the Chairman. She suffers from a complex that she is
the 'boss' and nobody could express an honest difference of opinion
even on trifling matters. In the past she had been behaving in a wholly
unreasonable manner with the Members of the Commission including
one Sri Mitha, retired earlier, and Sri Deol, the sitting Member. All
this can be proved from the records available at the Governor's Secretariat. Explaining as to why the other Members were supporting
Smt. Chowdhary, the respondent stated that they became hostile to
him as he had refused to apologise to the lady. He also pointed out that
although they had indicated in their earlier letters that they did not like
sitting with him, as a matter of fact, they continued holding the
. interviews of the candidates along with the respondent.
13. After service of notice issued by this Court all these five
persons as also Sri Darbara Singh, Chief Minister, and the Chief Secretary and a number of other persons who claimed to have information
of the incident filed their affidavits before this Court. Sri Saini filed a
long affidavit along with annexures which is included at pages 19 to 90
in Vol. I of the paper book. He also filed separate counter affidavits
explaining his stand with reference to the statements made by the
other persons so far they went against him. The counter affidavit of
Smt. Chowdhary in reply to Sri Saini's affidavit is also a detailed one
and is included at pages 1-34 of Vol. II of tbe paper book. Other
further affidavits filed by many persons described as counter affidavits
or rejoinder affidavits or affidavits in reply were filed before this Court
in 1983.
14. Apart from denying the version of the incident as presented
in the complaint petition and the affidavits of the Chairman, Sri Saini
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
has attempted to give the background in which the present accusation
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990) 3 S.C.R.
A
has been made ag&inst him. According to his case, there were two
- --(-
groups in the ruling Congress Party in Punjab, one led by Giani Zail
Singh, who later became the President of India, and the other of Sri
Darbara Singh. Sri Saini was appointed a Member of the Public
Service Commission on 30.5.1980, that is, just a day before the
General Elections for the State, in which Sri Darbara Singh emerged
8
as the leader. He took charge of the office of Chief Minister on
6.6.1980 and was disappointed to find that the constitution of the
Commission was complete with the Chairman and five Members. In
"T
August, 1982 Sri D.S. Sodhi one of the Members retired and Sri
Darbara Singh wanted to have his nominee in his place. The Governor, Sri Chenna Reddy, however, declined to fill up the 6th post and
c
Sri Darbara Singh was, therefore, pigued at the situation. He became
determined to get his nominee appointed even if it required some
manoeuvre for creating the vacancy. In the meantime some misunderstanding developed between Sri Darbara Singh and the wife of Sri
~
.,...
Saini, Smt. Krishna Chaudhary, who is a social worker. Smt. Kirshna
I
had led a deputation of the villagers of certain locality to the then
D
Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and the Chief Minister felt that
this was a move against him and he threatened her publicly. Both the
Chief Minister and Smt. Krishna have been examined as witnesses in
this case and have been cross-examined at considerable length. Mr.
Mittal, the learned counsel for the respondent, developed the theory
of a conspiracy in his argument on the basis of the evidence led in the
).__
E
case and argued that Sri Darbara Singh hatched out the conspiracy to
get the respondent removed from his office, to which Smt. Chowdhary
became a colluding party. When a minor incident took place on
24.11.1982 she exploited the situation to her advantage with a view to
please the Chief Minister, and the Members being impressed by the
drama enacted by her, fell for her story. It was argued by the learned·
'
F
counsel that the original complaint petition of Smt. Chowdhary which
,J__
was drawn up like an F.I.R. was not traceable on the records of the
Governor's Secretariat and could not be filed as evidence. Referring to
its zerox copy it was pointed that the same did not bear any official
number of the office of the Public Service Commission; and, the
endorsements made thereon were also characterised as suspicious.
G
The Governor was to return to Punjab by the end of the month, but
without waiting for a single day the Chief Minister decided to take
immediate hasty step on the complaint and directed the Chief Secretary accordingly. Relying on the evidence which indicates that Smt.
-/
Chowdhary along with the other three Members and a stenographer,
travelling with his typewriter in another car, all proceeded from
H
Patiala to Chandigarh, it was urged that if the complaint petition and
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) [SHARMA, J.]
591
the joint petition of the three Members had already been dratted at
.~~ .. _ Patiala, where was the necessity of two car loads of people along with a
typewriter to proceed to Chandigarh. The argument is that Smt.
Chowdhary took care of taking the three Members to meet the Chief
Minister and get commited to their story thus closing their way to
return to the truth. The evidence of several other witnesses examined
in support of the defence of Sri Saini's version of the incident was also
relied upon.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent placed the subsequent statements of the th,-ee Members df the Commission and contended that they show .a clear departure from their original stand.
Similar criticism has been made against the evidence of Smt.
Chowdhary also. In our view, there is no vital difference in their
statements made from time to time which may render their evidence
doubtful. But before we proceed to examine the evidence in detail on
this aspect, we would briefly indicate the nature of the other evidence
led in the case.
16. A number of affidavits were attached to main affidavit of Sri
Saini filed in this case on 1.3.1983. In these affidavits sworn on
28.2.1983 and 1.3.1983, some of the deponents claimed to be eyewitnesses of the incident, and they denied the story of slapping of the
Chairman by the respondent. They are Ujagar Singh, Avtar Singh,
Labh Singh and Hakam Singh. According to their version it was the
Chairman who was shouting at the respondent and had raised her hand
in air. Hakam Singh subsequently did not support his earlier statement
and according to the case of the respondent supported by a second
affidavit of Ujagar Singh, he had been won over through the police.
The respondent had also attached an affidavit of his wife stating that
she being a social worker had met the Prime Minister to press the
grievance of certain villagers which enraged the Chief Minister. The
Chief Minister subsequently threatened her with a warning that she
would be set right. This story has been again supported by the
affidavits of Labh Singh, Bakshish Singh, Niranjan Singh, Mahendra
Singh and Swaran Singh. Two advocates Santokh Singh Gil and Hari
Mohan Singh Pal stated on affidavits that Sri Saini came from a
respectable family and was known for his cool temper and good
menners. Some of the deponents later disowned the statements in the
affidavits; and another affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent
stating that this was the result of an attempt by the other side to win
over the witnesses through the police. This allegation has been denied
by the police witnesses M.S. Bhul!er and Narender Pal Singh.
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
17. So far the case of the respondent about the actual incident is
concerned, he has narrated his version in several affidavits filed in this
proceeding. With respect to what actually happened soon after 1.00
p.m.