# 2025 INSC 1047

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1047
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-28
- **Bench:** J.K. Maheshwari, Aravind Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2025-insc-1047-38477
- **Pages:** 62

## Headnote

Leakage of question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains
Examination conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission (APPSC), on 26th and 27th August, 2022, led to
the present reference by the Hon'ble President of India under
Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, for inquiry and report
as to whether Respondent (Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage) ought to
be removed as member of APPSC on grounds of misbehaviour.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art. 317(1) - Leakage of question paper
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by
the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) -
Reference u/Art.317(1) of Constitution - Whether Respondent
ought to be removed as member of APPSC on grounds of
misbehaviour:
Held: In the present case, one can see that from the very inception,
from the report of the Inquiry Committee, no specific allegation
against the Respondent qua any of the six charges was levelled -
Chapter 7 of this report, which forms the very basis of the present
reference, merely makes some suggestions for improvement in
the functioning of the APPSC and to adopt best practices - But
it makes no adverse comment or personal indictment against the
Respondent - In the present case, the letter of the Chief Minister
to the Governor dated 27.10.2022 as well as letter of the Hon'ble
Governor to the Hon'ble President of India dated 02.12.2022 impute
responsibility for the leakage of the question paper for the Mains
Examination upon the members of the Commission even though
there was no such finding in the Inquiry Report - These letters
further make it clear that the State dealt with the matter with a
prejudice that the Members of the Commission were responsible for
* Author
2228
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the paper leakage without sufficient material or evidence to reach
such a conclusion - The actions alleged against the Respondent
do not meet the threshold of 'misbehaviour', rather, they do not
even meet the threshold of 'lapse' which has a lower threshold - It
is not a case where the Respondent was unable to maintain the
standard of conduct expected of a Member of a Commission and
her actions alone brought disrepute to the APPSC - No overt act
by her has been shown to meet the threshold of misbehaviour -
When there is no evidence linking the Respondent to the leakage
of the question paper of the Mains Examination, summarily
holding her responsible and seeking to remove her from office
on the pretext of not maintaining confidentiality in the work of the
Commission, it would further erode the roots of the Constitutional
intent of Article 317 to protect the Members of the Public Service
Commission from political pressure - Reference made by the
Hon'ble President of India for the charges as alleged are not based
on specific allegations against the Respondent in her individual or
official capacity - Allegations which are general in nature, have not
even been substantiated by bringing any cogent evidence and as
such the allegations have not been found proved in the fact-finding
enquiry conducted in exercise of powers under Art.145(1)(j) of the
Constitution of India read with Order XLIII of the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 - Allegations of charges as made in the reference have
not been proved - In terms of Order XLIII Rule 5 of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 and answering the reference under Article 317(1)
of the Constitution of India, this report with recommendation shall be
sent to the Hon'ble President of India that the charges as alleged
do not bring about any act of 'misbehaviour' by Respondent for
taking action within its contours - It is further recommended that
her suspension be revoked forthwith and she would be entitled to
all consequential and monetary benefits. [Paras 75-78, 80]
Constitution of India - Art.317 - Removal and suspension
of a member of Public Service Commission - What may
constitute 'misbehaviour' under Art.317 of the Constitution -
External aids to discern the meanin

## Text

_Characters 0–39,638 of 135,070. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39638 for what follows._

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2227 : 2025 INSC 1047
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
(Ref. U/A 317(1) No. 1 of 2023)
28 August 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Leakage of question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains
Examination conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission (APPSC), on 26th and 27th August, 2022, led to
the present reference by the Hon'ble President of India under
Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, for inquiry and report
as to whether Respondent (Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage) ought to
be removed as member of APPSC on grounds of misbehaviour.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art. 317(1) - Leakage of question paper
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by
the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) -
Reference u/Art.317(1) of Constitution - Whether Respondent
ought to be removed as member of APPSC on grounds of
misbehaviour:
Held: In the present case, one can see that from the very inception,
from the report of the Inquiry Committee, no specific allegation
against the Respondent qua any of the six charges was levelled -
Chapter 7 of this report, which forms the very basis of the present
reference, merely makes some suggestions for improvement in
the functioning of the APPSC and to adopt best practices - But
it makes no adverse comment or personal indictment against the
Respondent - In the present case, the letter of the Chief Minister
to the Governor dated 27.10.2022 as well as letter of the Hon'ble
Governor to the Hon'ble President of India dated 02.12.2022 impute
responsibility for the leakage of the question paper for the Mains
Examination upon the members of the Commission even though
there was no such finding in the Inquiry Report - These letters
further make it clear that the State dealt with the matter with a
prejudice that the Members of the Commission were responsible for
* Author
2228
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the paper leakage without sufficient material or evidence to reach
such a conclusion - The actions alleged against the Respondent
do not meet the threshold of 'misbehaviour', rather, they do not
even meet the threshold of 'lapse' which has a lower threshold - It
is not a case where the Respondent was unable to maintain the
standard of conduct expected of a Member of a Commission and
her actions alone brought disrepute to the APPSC - No overt act
by her has been shown to meet the threshold of misbehaviour -
When there is no evidence linking the Respondent to the leakage
of the question paper of the Mains Examination, summarily
holding her responsible and seeking to remove her from office
on the pretext of not maintaining confidentiality in the work of the
Commission, it would further erode the roots of the Constitutional
intent of Article 317 to protect the Members of the Public Service
Commission from political pressure - Reference made by the
Hon'ble President of India for the charges as alleged are not based
on specific allegations against the Respondent in her individual or
official capacity - Allegations which are general in nature, have not
even been substantiated by bringing any cogent evidence and as
such the allegations have not been found proved in the fact-finding
enquiry conducted in exercise of powers under Art.145(1)(j) of the
Constitution of India read with Order XLIII of the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 - Allegations of charges as made in the reference have
not been proved - In terms of Order XLIII Rule 5 of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 and answering the reference under Article 317(1)
of the Constitution of India, this report with recommendation shall be
sent to the Hon'ble President of India that the charges as alleged
do not bring about any act of 'misbehaviour' by Respondent for
taking action within its contours - It is further recommended that
her suspension be revoked forthwith and she would be entitled to
all consequential and monetary benefits. [Paras 75-78, 80]
Constitution of India - Art.317 - Removal and suspension
of a member of Public Service Commission - What may
constitute 'misbehaviour' under Art.317 of the Constitution -
External aids to discern the meaning - Constituent Assembly
Debates - Reports of Supreme Court in previous references
and judgements - Misbehaviour & Misconduct through the
lens of Legal Dictionaries - Discussed.
Held: The Supreme Court, when called upon to decide a reference
under Article 317 of the Constitution of India, must embark on
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2229
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
a fact-finding inquiry to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in
the facts and circumstances of that case, the allegations against
the Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission would
amount to misbehaviour - Misbehaviour has been interpreted to
have a larger ambit than misconduct at a somewhat normative
level - Every misconduct might be considered a misbehaviour
but not every misbehaviour amounts to misconduct, since even
acts which bring disrepute to the office of the Public Service
Commission have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to
be misbehaviour - Instances of physical violence between the
members, non-declaration of relatives participating in a recruitment
process conducted by the Commission and attempting to influence
the Commission to favour a particular candidate have all been
considered as instances of 'misbehaviour' by the Supreme Court -
Supreme Court has therefore given an extensive, wide and liberal
interpretation to the term 'misbehaviour' - Even though, generally,
Supreme Court has negatived allegations of misbehaviour against
members of a Public Service Commission on account of lack of
direct evidence linking such member to irregularities alleged,
but where for instance in Mehar Singh Saini, on the basis of
evidence the inaction and lack of due diligence of the Commission
is absolutely glaring at a prima facie level and palpably illegal
and reeks of favouritism, the Court has taken a view that even
though there might be no direct evidence linking the members
to the irregularities alleged, the responsibility of the members of
the Commission cannot be washed away - Construction of the
language used in Article 317 of the Constitution, if given a plain
reading, however, makes it clear that removal and suspension of
a member of a Public Service Commission is in personam and
not of the entire Public Service Commission or its members as
a collective entity - Inquiry and eventual recommendation for
removal, if any, must be specific to the conduct of a particular
office-bearer with respect to any act or omission constituting
'misbehaviour' done in their official capacity - For proving
'misbehaviour' under Article 317 of the Constitution, in order to
remove a Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission
upon reference being made by the Hon'ble President of India, it
is generally necessary to demonstrate with cogent material as
per the procedure laid down that the conduct complained of and
charges formulated are attributable to the individual in question.
[Paras 41, 42]
2230
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Constitutional bodies - Public Service Commission - Office
of Chairman of Public service Commission and its Members -
Significance of:
Held: The Public Service Commission is a Constitutional body
which must, on one hand, be completely independent and without
any obligation towards the Executive while on the other hand, its
Chairman and members must be beyond reproach, with exemplary
ethical and moral standards, in order to retain the faith of the
common man in the process of selection and appointments to public
offices - These Commissions were established as independent
constitutional bodies to ensure that the process of recruitment in
public service became insulated from political pressure and that
recruitment to public administrative posts is conducted with utmost
fairness and transparency - Their role is not merely administrative
but also constitutional in nature, as they serve as sentinels of
public trust in the civil service system - It is imperative for a Public
Service Commission to discharge its duties with utmost impartiality,
free from any extraneous and suspect influences that could
compromise its integrity - Chairperson and Members of a Public
Service Commission must conform to a standard of conduct that is
unimpeachable in the eyes of law - Their actions, decisions, and
even omissions must reflect the fairness, and highest degree of
integrity inherent in these constitutional offices. [Paras 43, 44, 46]
Constitution of India - Art.317(1) - Reference under - Scope
and object - Discussed:
Held: Article 317 of the Constitution of India has been enshrined in
the Constitution of India to afford greater protection to the Members
of the Commission - The members, serving on an upper mantle,
are susceptible to political pressure, and in order to safeguard them
from the whims of the powers of the day, the Constituent Assembly,
in their endless wisdom, had laid forth an elaborate procedure for
their removal - Members of Public Service Commission can only
be removed strictly by complying the rigour of Article 317 of the
Constitution of India, and not through any regular departmental
inquiry, thereby acting as a qualification on the doctrine of pleasure
that is exercised by the President regarding various constitutional
posts. [Para 18]
Words and Phrases - "misbehaviour" and "misconduct" -
Misbehaviour is different from misconduct.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2231
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
Held: Misconduct has an element of mens rea, whereas
misbehaviour may include any conduct on part of the member
which does not align with standards of the office - Misconduct may
include graver acts or omissions whereas misbehaviour refers to
a conduct which has the potential to destroy the faith in a public
office. [Para 38]
Case Law Cited
Ram Ashray Yadav (Dr.), Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, In R/o (Special Reference No. 1 of 1997) [2000] 2
SCR 688 : (2000) 4 SCC 309; Reference Under Article 317(1) of
the Constitution of India, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
(Reference No. 1 of 2006) [2009] 10 SCR 470 : (2009) 8 SCC
41 - relied on.
Mehar Singh Saini, In re (Reference No. 2 of 2008) [2010] 14
SCR 647 : (2010) 13 SCC 586 - distinguished.
Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, In re,
(Special Reference No. 1 of 1983) [1983] 3 SCR 639 : (1983) 4
SCC 258; Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of
India, In re, (Special Reference No. 1 of 1983) (1990) 4 SCC 262;
Sher Singh, In Re (Reference Case No. 1 of 1995) [1997] 1 SCR
654 : (1997) 3 SCC 216; Sayalee Sajeev Joshi (Smt), Member,
Maharashtra Public Service Commission, In Re (Reference No.
1 of 2004) [2007] 7 SCR 116 : (2007) 11 SCC 547; Reference
under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, In re, (Reference
No. 1 of 2003) [2008] 15 SCR 1000 : (2009) 1 SCC 337; C.
Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee [1995] Supp. 3
SCR 319 : (1995) 5 SCC 457; Krishna Swami v. Union of India
[1992] Supp. 1 SCR 53 : (1992) 4 SCC 605; Common Cause v.
Union of India [1999] 3 SCR 1279 : (1999) 6 SCC 667; State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India [2018] 7 SCR 1 : (2018) 8 SCC
501 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Constituent Assembly Debates CAD, Vols.9, 11; Black's Law
Dictionary, 6th Edn., pp.998 and 999; Encyclopedic Law Dictionary,
3rd Edn., p.720; Advanced Law Lexicon, 7th Edn., 2024 by P.
Ramanatha Aiyar - referred to.
2232
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
List of Keywords
Constitutional Law; Article 317; Misbehaviour; Public Service
Commission; APPSC; Civil Servants; Removal Procedure;
Presidential Reference; Question Paper Leakage; Assistant
Engineer Examination; Confidentiality in Recruitment; Collective
Responsibility; Individual Liability; Institutional Failure; Judicial
Control; Inquiry Committee; Fact-Finding Inquiry; Constitutional
Safeguards; Autonomy of Commissions; Independence of PSC;
Standards of Conduct; Integrity; Quasi-Judicial Functions; Lapses
versus Misbehaviour; Vagueness of Charges; Burden of Proof;
Natural Justice; Suspension of Member; Role of Governor; Role
of President; Role of Attorney General; Work Allocation Order;
Examination Guidelines 2017; Examination Guidelines 2022;
Collective Decision-Making; Moral Responsibility; Precedents on
Misbehaviour; Constitutional Trust; Public Confidence; Supreme
Court's Advisory Jurisdiction.
Case Arising From
ADVISORY JURISDICTION: REF. U/A 317(1) No. 1 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
By Courts Motion
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
R Venkatramani, AGI, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Manish Goswami, Sr.
Adv., Shailesh Madiyal, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Raman Yadav,
Chitvan Singhal, Abhishek Kr Pandey, Kartikay Aggarwal, Mukesh
Kr Singh, Ameyvikrama Thanvi, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal,
Gaurav Shukla, N Sriraman, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Arvind
Kumar Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Rituraj Biswas, Mayan Prasad, Sushil
Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Ms. Japneet Kaur, Ms. Vriti Gujarat,
Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Abhishek Bhardwaj, Ms. Sujana Bardhan,
Ms. Anshula Grover.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2233
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Report
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
with a demanding job that the Constitution Framers envisaged the
setting up of autonomous and independent bodies like the Public
Service Commission at the Centre and in the States. Led by eminent
members nominated by the government, these bodies govern the
recruitment of civil servants and play a significant advisory role in
their appointments, promotions, and disciplinary actions. To ensure
these bodies remain completely impartial and free from any influence
or outside pressure, Article 317 of the Constitution prescribes a
stringent procedure for the removal of their members.
3.
This is a reference made by the Hon'ble President of India under
Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, pertaining to the unfortunate
tale of one such member who came to be nominated to a State Public
Service Commission and was caught in the crosshairs of allegations
and accusations of misbehaviour, for inquiry and report as to whether
2234
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Respondent - Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, (hereinafter referred to
as "Respondent"), Member of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as "APPSC") ought to be
removed as a member of APPSC on the grounds of misbehaviour.
4.
The tipping point of the matter is the leakage of the question paper
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by the
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, on 26th and 27th
August, 2022, leading to the reference for the removal of Ms. Bage,
who was a member of the APPSC at the relevant time. Broadly, the
facts giving rise to the present reference have been laid forth as under.
FACTS
5.
The Respondent was appointed as a member of APPSC on 12.08.2021
under Article 316(1) of the Constitution of India, and assumed charge
on 13.08.2021. As per Article 316(2) of the Constitution of India, a
member of the APPSC shall hold office for a term of six years from
the date on which he/she enters office or until attaining the age of 62
years, whichever is earlier. The APPSC consisted of five Members
including the Chairman. On 18.08.2021, the Chairman of APPSC
delineated the duties of the Respondent.
6.
In the calendar year 2022, on 26.08.2022 and 27.08.2022, the
APPSC conducted the Mains Examination for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) (hereinafter referred to as "Mains Examination"). On
28.08.2022, one of the candidates for the said examination, namely
Mr. Gyamar Padang, submitted a formal complaint to the Officer-inCharge of Police Station, Itanagar, alleging that some questions of the
paper for the said examination were leaked in advance by APPSC in
conspiracy with certain coaching institutes, which were accessible to
some candidates including him beforehand, and therefore requested
to lodge an FIR. On 29.08.2022, he further informed the Secretary,
APPSC regarding such leakage, and requested for stay on declaration
of the results until a thorough and fair enquiry has been conducted.
7.
Subsequently, in light of the complaint, on 10.09.2022, FIR bearing
No. 229/2022 was registered at Police Station, Itanagar under Sections
120-B, 420, 406, 407, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
one teacher, Mr. Akhilesh Yadav of a coaching institute. APPSC
cancelled the Preliminary and Mains Examination on 20.09.2022.
Concerned with such allegations, the matter was transferred to the
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2235
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
Special Investigation Cell (Vigilance) (hereinafter referred to as "SIC
(Vigilance)") for further inquiry on 27.09.2022 and renumbered as
SIC Vigilance PS Case No. 11/2022 and Sections 7, 8 and 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also invoked in addition
to offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, on
26.10.2022, it was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "CBI")
and renumbered as Case No. RC0172022A0009.
8.
Further complaints were filed with SIC (Vigilance) regarding possible
leakages in earlier examinations, alleging the involvement of
APPSC members, which were also transferred to CBI for collective
investigation. To address the magnitude of the allegations, during
pendency of the criminal proceedings, the Government of Arunachal
Pradesh on 21.09.2022 constituted a Three-member High-level
Inquiry Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Inquiry Committee")
to probe into the irregularities in the Mains Examination. The relevant
portion of the terms of reference of the Committee is quoted below: -
"The terms of Reference of the Committee shall be as
under: -
(i) To inquire into all aspects of the incident of leakage
of question paper in the APPSC exam held on 26th and
27th August 2022;
(ii) To inquire if the standard operating procedures including
setting of question papers and design of question paper
booklets were followed;
(iii) To inquire into the lapses on the part of officers / officials
involved directly / indirectly in the recruitment process;
(iv) To recommend changes in the recruitment process
including Standard Operating Procedures followed by the
Commission;
(v) To recommend appropriate modifications in the selection
process of officials deputed in APPSC and
(vi) To make recommendations on any other related
issues."
9.
From a bare perusal of these terms of reference, it is abundantly
clear that from the very inception of the Inquiry Committee formed
2236
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
by the State Government to probe into the irregularities in the Mains
Examination, no specific term of reference was formulated in respect
of the actions of the Chairman or Members of the APPSC.
10. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 06.10.2022, pointing
out lapses in Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as "SOP") with regard to maintaining the secrecy of the question
papers for the Mains Examination and other lacunae, and concluded
that the SOP and the APPSC Conduct of Examination Guidelines,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as "2017 Guidelines") have not been
followed by the APPSC. Meanwhile, on 14.10.2022, the Chairman of
the APPSC resigned on moral grounds. The State Government after
the receipt of the inquiry report deliberated on the possible actions and
sought legal opinion of the Ld. Advocate General of the State, who
on 27.10.2022 opined to invoke Article 317(1) of the Constitution of
India. Observing this, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh
on the same day requested the Hon'ble Governor of Arunachal
Pradesh to place the matter before the Hon'ble President of India
for making reference under Article 317(1) to the Supreme Court for
removal of the four members of the APPSC. In the meanwhile, three
members, namely, Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Jarken Gamlin and Maj. Gen.
(Retd.) Ganesh Singh Bisht on 27.10.2022 and Mr. Tsering Naksang
on 31.10.2022, tendered their resignations. Hence, the Respondent
herein was the only remaining member of the APPSC. Thereafter, on
02.12.2022, the Hon'ble Governor of the State requested the Hon'ble
President of India to make a reference to the Supreme Court of India
for initiating proceedings under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of
India for removal of the petitioner.
11. Meanwhile, the CBI filed a chargesheet on 08.12.2022 and
supplementary chargesheets on 30.01.2023 and 28.03.2023, wherein
the Respondent was not named as an accused. The investigation
disclosed that Mr. Taket Jerang, the Deputy Secretary-cum-Deputy
Controller of Examinations (DCoE), APPSC is primarily responsible
for the leakage of the Mains Examination paper. It was revealed that
he accepted a huge monetary consideration from several private
persons for supply of question papers for the subject examination. The
scheme involved tampering with sealed packets, copying papers, and
resealing them with the aid of one Mr. Dilip Saha, a representative
of printer Blessings Secured Press Private Limited, responsible for
printing the question papers.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2237
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
12. On 18.04.2023, the Hon'ble President of India made a reference to
this Court under Article 317(1) for removal of the Respondent on six
charges as quoted below: -
"I. That the question paper of AE (Civil) Main examination
2022 was allegedly leaked in connivance with the
functionaries of the Commission. Ms. Mepung Tadar
Bage, along with the Chairman and other Members of the
Commission failed to prevent the leak of question papers
and to ensure the confidentiality in the Commission's
working.
II. It is a matter of fact that multiple question papers for
various examinations were set by the Commission since
2017 about all of which, serious doubts in regard to their
leakage have arisen on the basis of complaints and that
this called for effecting changes in the relevant guidelines.
III. If remedial action had been taken in good time by
relevant changes in the examination guidelines and
ensuring vigil and supervision, the leak in the year 2022
could have been avoided.
IV. Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, had a collective responsibility
along with Chairman and other Members of the Commission,
to ensure the confidentiality in Commission's working, Ms.
Mepung Tadar Bage being the Member looking after all
legal matters as per allocation of work, was under an
exclusive responsibility which she failed to discharge.
V. The Commission did not finalize the conduct of
examination guidelines 2022, despite being aware of the
fact that this was last done in 2017. As a Member looking
after legal matters, it was Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage's
bounden duty to have the Commission address the subject
of changes in the guidelines.
VI. In June, 2022, the Commission decided to keep in
abeyance, its own orders related to punishment awarded
to candidates found using unfair means. Similarly, it was
the duty of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage to advise against
keeping the above said orders in abeyance."
2238
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
13. After the reference, the Respondent was placed under suspension
on 15.06.2023 by order of the Hon'ble Governor of the State in
accordance with Article 317(2) of the Constitution of India.
14. On receiving the reference, notice was issued to the Attorney General
of India, the Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh
and the Respondent. After filing the written statement on 02.11.2023
by the Respondent, an order was passed on 03.11.2023 to exchange
the points for determination of this reference. Pursuant to this, on
07.02.2024, a joint statement of issues agreed to by the counsels
of both the parties (APPSC and the Respondent respectively) and
settled by the Attorney General of India was submitted before this
Court. Accordingly, on 16.02.2024, this Court formulated the following
issues for consideration: -
"1. Whether the conduct of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage the
subject of reference, can be considered as 'misbehaviour'
within the meaning of Article 317 of the Constitution by
reason of her failure towards ensuring complete integrity in
all matters relating to the AE mains examination conducted
by Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
(APPSC) in August, 2022, and as such is liable to be
removed as a member?
2. Whether the alleged vagueness of charges raised on
behalf of the respondent-member can be an issue in the
enquiry under Article 317 of the Constitution?
3. Whether there is any scope or room for raising the
question of nonapplication of mind by any authority
preceding the request for Reference made by the Hon'ble
President of India under Article 317 of the Constitution?
4. Whether all the Charges are duly proved against the
Respondent?"
15. After the formulation of the issues, counsel for both the parties filed
their list of witnesses. As directed vide order dated 09.07.2024, the
evidence was recorded by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court which
concluded on 20.09.2024 and the reference was placed for hearing
before this Court.
16. Prior to adverting to the issues as framed, it is essential to refer
to Article 317 of the Constitution of India which deals with removal
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2239
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
and suspension of the Chairman or Member of a Public Service
Commission. The said Article is reproduced as under: -
"Article - 317. Removal and suspension of a member
of a Public Service Commission.
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.
2. The President, in the case of the Union Commission or a
Joint Commission, and the Governor in the case of a State
Commission, may suspend from office the Chairman or
any other member of the Commission in respect of whom
a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under
clause (1) until the President has passed orders on receipt
of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.
3. Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), the President
may by order remove from office the Chairman or any other
member of a Public Service Commission if the Chairman
or such other member, as the case may be, -
a.
is adjudged an insolvent; or
b.
engages during his term of office in any
paid employment outside the duties of his
office; or
c.
is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to
continue in office by reason of infirmity of
mind or body.
4. If the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service
Commission is or becomes in any way concerned or
interested in any contract or agreement made by or on
behalf of the Government of India or the Government of
a State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or
2240
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise
than as a member and in common with the other members
of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes
of clause (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour."
17. Article 317 of the Constitution of India specifies that the Chairman
or any other member of a Public Service Commission shall only
be removed by an order of the Hon'ble President of India on the
ground of misbehaviour. The said misbehaviour may be proved by
inquiry before the Supreme Court of India following the procedure
prescribed in Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed
under Article 145(1)(j) of the Constitution of India and the report in this
regard shall be submitted to the Hon'ble President of India. Clause
4 of Article 317 of the Constitution of India specifies an example of
misbehaviour that if the Chairman or any other member of a Public
Service Commission becomes in any way concerned or interested
in any contract of agreement made on behalf of the Government
of India or the Government of a State or participates in any way in
profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom. In
addition to the above, what may be included within the expression
of 'misbehaviour' is required to be examined in the present context.
18. A careful reading of Article 317 of the Constitution of India and the
supporting judicial precedents shows that the said provision has been
enshrined in the Constitution of India to afford greater protection
to the Members of the Commission. The members, serving on an
upper mantle, are susceptible to political pressure, and in order
to safeguard them from the whims of the powers of the day, the
Constituent Assembly, in their endless wisdom, had laid forth an
elaborate procedure for their removal. Thus, the members of the
Public Service Commission can only be removed strictly by complying
the rigour of Article 317 of the Constitution of India, and not through
any regular departmental inquiry, thereby acting as a qualification on
the doctrine of pleasure that is exercised by the President regarding
various constitutional posts.
19. As per this provision, a member of the Commission can be removed
on two grounds - firstly, on the ground of misbehaviour, after the
President has made a reference to this Court, and in consonance
with the prescribed procedure, and secondly, by reason of automatic
disqualification under Articles 317(3) and 317(4) of the Constitution.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2241
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
The term "misbehaviour" has neither been defined in the Constitution,
nor has it been contradistinguished from the word "misconduct". As
rules of Statutory Interpretation would govern the subject, however,
resort must be made to the judicial precedents and legal dictionaries
to cull out a meaning most befitting the circumstances of the instant
matter.
What may constitute 'misbehaviour' under Article 317 of the
Constitution of India - previous references
20. There are multiple external aids available to the Courts to discern
the meaning of a specific provision. Constituent Assembly Debates
is one such external aid available to the Court to understand the
rationale behind a particular provision and interpreting that provision
in the light of the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
Constituent Assembly Debates
21. In the Constituent Assembly Debates, Dr. BR Ambedkar spoke thus
on misbehaviour (CAD, Vol. 9, pp. 574-575):
"With regard to misbehaviour the provision is somewhat
peculiar. The Honourable House will remember that in the
case of the removal of High Court Judges or the Judges of
the Supreme Court, it has been provided in the articles we
have already passed, that they hold their posts during good
behaviour, and they shall not be liable to be removed until
a resolution in that behalf is passed by both Chambers of
Parliament. It is felt that it is unnecessary to provide such
a stiff and severe provision for the removal of members of
the Public Service Commission. Consequently, it has been
provided in this article that the provisions contained in the
Government of India Act for the removal of the Judges of
the High Court would be sufficient to give as much security
and as much protection to the members of the Public
Service Commission. I think the House will remember
that in the provisions contained in the Government of
India Act, what is necessary for the removal of a Federal
Court Judge or a High Court Judge is an enquiry made
by the Federal Court in the case of the High Court Judges
or by the Privy Council in the case of the Federal Court
2242
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judges, and on a report being made that there has been
a case of misbehaviour, it is open to the Governor-General
to remove either the Federal Court Judge or the Judge
of the High Court. We have adopted the same provision
with regard to the removal of Public Service Commission,
wherever there is a case of misbehaviour."
22. The President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad,
stated in unequivocal terms the following lines (CAD, Vol. 11,
pp. 990 - 991):
"Our Constitution has devised certain independent
agencies to deal with particular matters. Thus, it has
provided for Public Service Commission both for the
Union and for the States and placed such Commission on
an independent footing so that they may discharge their
duties without being influenced by the Executive. One of
the things against which we have to guard is that there
should be no room as far as it is humanly possible for
jobbery, nepotism and favouritism. I think the provisions
which we have introduced into our Constitution will be
very helpful in this direction."
23. Mr. H.V. Kamath, another imminent member of the Constitutional
Assembly was of the following opinion (CAD, Vol. 9, pp. 586 - 587):
"It is agreed on all hands that the permanent services play
an important role in the administration of any country. With
the independence of our country the responsibilities of the
services have become more onerous. They may make
or mar the efficiency of the machinery of administrationcall it steel frame or what you will, - a machinery which
is so vital for the peace and progress of the country. A
country without an efficient Civil Service cannot make
progress in spite of the earnestness of those people at
the helm of affairs in the country. Wherever democratic
institutions exist experience has shown that it is essential
to protect the public Service as far as possible from
political or personal influence and to give it that position
of stability and security which is vital to its successful
working as an impartial and efficient instrument by which
Government-of whatever political complexion-may give
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2243
In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission
effect to their policies. It is imperative that whichever
Government comes into power, the permanent services
must carry out the policy laid down by the Government for
the time being in office. In countries where this principle
has been neglected, and where instead the spoils system
has taken its place, inefficient and disorganised Civil
Service has been the inevitable result and corruption has
become rampant with all its attendant consequences. It is
therefore of the utmost importance that the Public Service
Commissions that we contemplate under these articles
should be completely independent of the Government
of the day whether at the Centre or in the States.
Otherwise, I am afraid the Civil Services will apprehend
that amenability to Ministerial pressure and a correct
attitude towards questions in which a little coterie or
the group for the time being in power, is interested, will
secure them promotions rather than merit or efficiency.
I have often known that a Secretary to a Minister if he
volunteers an opinion which is not palatable to the Minister
in Office, the Minister puts him on the blacklist and he
is not considered favourably for future promotions. Of
course, once a policy is laid down the public servants
have to carry them out. But I know of instance where
Ministers have looked upon with disfavour Secretaries or
other servants, whose opinion was invited criticising their
policies: this is a very undesirable state of affairs and
I am sure that sort of thing should not be encouraged.
Therefore, I hold that where there is any apprehension
on the part of Civil Servants that, if they are amenable
to Ministerial pressure, they are likely to be promoted,
and that merit and efficiency countless, if that mentality
seizes public servants, there is likely to be demoralisation
throughout the ranks of the services."
24. From the aforementioned excerpts of the constituent assembly
debates, we get a peek into the minds of the Framers and their
intention while framing Article 317. Their primary goal was to ensure
the autonomy and independence of the Public Service Commissions,
and to secure it, they prescribed an elaborate procedure for the
removal of its members.
2244
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Reports of this Court in previous references and judgements
25. In order to further understand the meaning of 'misbehaviour', guidance
may be taken from the previous reports. This Court had the first ever
occasion to deal with a reference under Article 317(1) of Constitution
of India - where a member of the Punjab Public Service Commission
was alleged to have slapped the Chairperson in the presence of
the other members. In Reference under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution of India, In re, (Special Reference No. 1 of 1983)
reported in (1983) 4 SCC 258 this Court dealt with the procedural
contours of an inquiry under Article 317 of the Constitution of India
and held that any allegation of misbehaviour against a member of
a Public Service Commission is to be looked into by the Supreme
Court on merits considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
"6. The power of the President to make a reference to this
Court under Article 317(1) is not subject to the condition
precedent that he must first have the facts examined by
some other body of authority. That Article provides that
the Chairman or any other Member of a Public Service
Commission can only be removed from his office on the
ground of misbehaviour after the Supreme Court on a
Reference made to it by the President reports that the
Chairman or such other person ought to be removed on
any such ground...
xx
xx
xx
xx
7. ...The inquiry which this Court is required to hold is
not into the limited question whether, on the basis of
facts found by the President, the charge of misbehaviour
is made out and whether the misbehaviour is of such a
nature as to warrant the removal of the person from his
office.