# INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON AND ORS v. STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2006] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 772
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2006-05-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 3411-3421 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Dal Veer Bhandari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/inderpreet-singh-kahlon-and-ors-v-sta-te-of-punjab-and-ors-21468
- **Pages:** 72

## Headnote

Service Law.
Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970: Rule 23.
Civil Services-Recruitment through State public Service Commission--
Mass corruption-En masse termination of appointments-Tainted candidates
and non-tainted candidates-Separation and segregation of--Chairman State
Public Service Commission alleged to have appointed a large number of
D persons on extraneous considerations including monetary consideration---
Vigi/ance Bureau of the State wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary alleging
that most of the examinations held during the period of the said Chairman
were tainted-The services of the nominated candidate5 (Class I Officers)
were terminated simpliciter i.e. by terminating the probation-Full Bench
dismissed the writ petition filed by the aggrieved candidates--Correctness
E of-Held: An appointment made in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution would be void-It would be a nullity-But before such a finding
can be arrived at the appointing authority must take into consideration the
foundational facts-Only when such foundational facts are established, the
legal principles can be applied-It was not impossible for the State to
separate the innocent people from the tainted ones-Jn the event it is found
F to be impossible or highly improbable to separate tainted cases from the nontainted cases, en-masse orders of termination could have been issued-High
Court judgment set aside-Matter remitted to High Court for consideration
ajresh--Constitution of India, 1950. Arts. /.I and 16.
G
H
Practice and Procedure :
Hearing of matter-Propriety of Judges-Mass corruption-En masses
termination of appointments-principles of natural justice--Chief Justice of
High Court constituted two committees chaired by two senior Judges to look
772
INOERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB
773
into allegation of illegal appointments-The said committees recommended A
cancellation of appointments-Full Court accepted the recommendationWrit petitions filed by the aggrieved candidates came up for hearing before
a Full Bench-Two of !he members of !he Full Bench were Chairman of the
two committees appoinled by !he Chief Justice-However, the counsel for the
writ petitioners stated /hat !hey had no objection lo 1he said Judges hearing B
the writ pelition-Ultimately the writ petitions dismissed-Correctness ofHeld: (Per Sinha, J, Bhandari, J dissenling)-Two senior Judges who had
headed the committees should not have been made part of the Bench-It was
not a case where /he doctrine of necessity was required to be invoked-Writ
petitioners might have waived their rights to objecl to !he said Judges-But
ii was clearly a case where /he Judges should have recused lhemselves from C
hearing the matter-II was for them to remind lhemselves 1ha1 justice is not
only done bul manifestly seen to be done-High Courl judgment se/ asideMatter remitted to High Courl for consideration afresh.
Doctrines :
"Doctrine of Waiver'' Experienced.
Certain allegations were made against the Chairman of the Punjab Public
Service Commission that, during his tenure between 1996 and 2002, he got
D
a large number of persons appointed on extraneous consideration including
monetary consideration. Result sheets of the nominated candidates were seized. E
The Vigilance Bureau of the State wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary,
alleging that most of the examinations held during the period of the said
Chairman were tainted. So far as the nominated candidates were concerned,
the Vigilance Department of the State received the answer sheets for the 1998
examination and sent a report to the investigating agency. On the same day F
itself the nominated candidates were given charge of the Executive Magistrate
but, on the next day, the Vigilance Bureau on purported receipt of the details
of interview of the nominated candidates sent a note to the Chief Secretary
whereupon orders of termination were passed. All the officers in the category
of nominated executive officers were about to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,877 of 168,031. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39877 for what follows._

A
B
c
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON AND ORS.
v.
STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
MAY 3, 2006
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.)
Service Law.
Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970: Rule 23.
Civil Services-Recruitment through State public Service Commission--
Mass corruption-En masse termination of appointments-Tainted candidates
and non-tainted candidates-Separation and segregation of--Chairman State
Public Service Commission alleged to have appointed a large number of
D persons on extraneous considerations including monetary consideration---
Vigi/ance Bureau of the State wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary alleging
that most of the examinations held during the period of the said Chairman
were tainted-The services of the nominated candidate5 (Class I Officers)
were terminated simpliciter i.e. by terminating the probation-Full Bench
dismissed the writ petition filed by the aggrieved candidates--Correctness
E of-Held: An appointment made in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution would be void-It would be a nullity-But before such a finding
can be arrived at the appointing authority must take into consideration the
foundational facts-Only when such foundational facts are established, the
legal principles can be applied-It was not impossible for the State to
separate the innocent people from the tainted ones-Jn the event it is found
F to be impossible or highly improbable to separate tainted cases from the nontainted cases, en-masse orders of termination could have been issued-High
Court judgment set aside-Matter remitted to High Court for consideration
ajresh--Constitution of India, 1950. Arts. /.I and 16.
G
H
Practice and Procedure :
Hearing of matter-Propriety of Judges-Mass corruption-En masses
termination of appointments-principles of natural justice--Chief Justice of
High Court constituted two committees chaired by two senior Judges to look
772
INOERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB
773
into allegation of illegal appointments-The said committees recommended A
cancellation of appointments-Full Court accepted the recommendationWrit petitions filed by the aggrieved candidates came up for hearing before
a Full Bench-Two of !he members of !he Full Bench were Chairman of the
two committees appoinled by !he Chief Justice-However, the counsel for the
writ petitioners stated /hat !hey had no objection lo 1he said Judges hearing B
the writ pelition-Ultimately the writ petitions dismissed-Correctness ofHeld: (Per Sinha, J, Bhandari, J dissenling)-Two senior Judges who had
headed the committees should not have been made part of the Bench-It was
not a case where /he doctrine of necessity was required to be invoked-Writ
petitioners might have waived their rights to objecl to !he said Judges-But
ii was clearly a case where /he Judges should have recused lhemselves from C
hearing the matter-II was for them to remind lhemselves 1ha1 justice is not
only done bul manifestly seen to be done-High Courl judgment se/ asideMatter remitted to High Courl for consideration afresh.
Doctrines :
"Doctrine of Waiver'' Experienced.
Certain allegations were made against the Chairman of the Punjab Public
Service Commission that, during his tenure between 1996 and 2002, he got
D
a large number of persons appointed on extraneous consideration including
monetary consideration. Result sheets of the nominated candidates were seized. E
The Vigilance Bureau of the State wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary,
alleging that most of the examinations held during the period of the said
Chairman were tainted. So far as the nominated candidates were concerned,
the Vigilance Department of the State received the answer sheets for the 1998
examination and sent a report to the investigating agency. On the same day F
itself the nominated candidates were given charge of the Executive Magistrate
but, on the next day, the Vigilance Bureau on purported receipt of the details
of interview of the nominated candidates sent a note to the Chief Secretary
whereupon orders of termination were passed. All the officers in the category
of nominated executive officers were about to complete their period of
probation. The services of the nominated candidates (Class I Offers) were G
terminated simpliciter purported to be in terms of the Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1970 i.e., by terminating the probation.
The appellants comprised of four categories of officers, that is to say,
(1) Direct recruits in Executive Class I. In the said category services of28
persons were terminated. (2) Direct recruits (Allied etc.) being in Executive H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.
A Class II. In the said category services of 63 persons were terminated. (3)
Nominated Candidates being in Executive Class I. Services of 18 persons from
the said category were terminated. ( 4) Judicial Officers who were appointed
in four batches.
Services of the Direct Recruit Executive Class I and Class II Officers
B were terminated by way of dismissal from services only on the premise that
the criminal prosecution had been initiated against the aforementioned
Chairman.
So far as the Judicial Officers were concerned, indisputably, the High
Court acted on the basis of media reports alleging that the wards of some of
C the sitting Judges of the High Court have been favoured by the said chairman.
The Chief Justice of High Court constituted a Committee chaired by a senior
Judge. On a request made by the High Court answer sheets of nine candidates
were handed over to the said Committee. No other record was, however, made
available to the Committee. A report was submitted by the said Committee
D wherein recommendations were made that the appointments made of the
judicial offers in all the four batches should stand cancelled although selection
of the officers from the 1998 batch was not in question. The report, However,
was accepted by Full Court.
The appellants, being aggrieved by the said actions on the part of the
E State, filed writ petitions before the High Court. The said writ petitions came
up for hearing before a Full Bench of the High Court. Two of the members of
the said Beach were Chairmen of the two committees appointed by the Chief
Justice. At the hearing of the writ petitions, the appellants stated that they
had no objection to the said Judges hearing the writ petitions. Ultimately, the
F writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the appeal.
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the principles of
natural justice had been violated as the contents of the reports of the Vigilance
Bureau were not disclosed to the appellants; that the State was not right in
terminating the services of the appellants on the basis of the purported case
G of mass corruption without making an attempt to separate the non-tainted
candidates from the tainted ones; and that two of the Judges who headed the
sub-committees being biased, they could not have taken part in the decisionmaking process and they should have recused themselves.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the
H
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB
775
Court
A
HELD : Per Sinha, J
1. As appointment made in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India would be void. It would be a nullity. But before such a
finding can be arrived at the appointing authority must take into consideration B
the foundational facts. Only when such foundational facts are established, the
legal principles can be applied. (798-E]
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCALE 247, relied on.
2.1. lfthe services of the appointees who had put in a few years of service C
were terminated, compliance of three principles at the hands of the State was
imperative, viz., to establish (1) Satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of
the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction
that the selection process was tainted; (2) determine the question that the
illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entire D
selection process. Such satisfac.tion as also the sufficiency of materials were
required to be gathered by reason of a though investigation in a fair and
transparent manner; (3) Whether the sufficient material present enabled the
State to arrive at the satisfaction that the officers in majority have been found
to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt.
(798-F,G] E
2.2. Apart from the inferences drawn on certain facts and in particular
the circumstance enumerated by the High Court, it is difficult to accept that
it was demonstrated by the State that it was absolutely impossible for it to
separate the innocent people from the tainted ones. (799-B, C]
2.3. It is also not a case where all the relevant records have been
destroyed. The vigilance Bureau does not say so. Questions papers, answer
sheets and other documents are available. Reports made by the Bureau were
prepared upon examination of the materials collected by it. The High Court
itself has noticed that what is not available is the record relating to the
procedure adopted in regard to appointment of paper setters. It may be true
that such records could be destroyed only after a period of five years but it
has not been pointed out by the State as to how by reason of the non-availability
thereof, it became difficult for the authorities to arrive at the correct facts. It
F
G
has not been informed that the connecting materials were also destroyed. It
had been noticed by the High Court that all relevant information were available H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.
A and submitted to the court. It cannot, therefore, be said that a fair investigation
into the whole affair was an impossible task or despite availability of all such
records a thorough investigation had been made so as to arrive at a
satisfaction that the entire selection process suffered from a large scale fraud.
It has also not been found that all the appointments were made on extraneous
B considerations including monetary consideration. 1799-C-Fl
3.1. If fraud in the selection process was established, the State should
not have offered to hold a re-selection. Seniority of those who were reselected
ordinarily could not have been restored in their favour. Such an offer was
evidently made as the State was not sure about the involvement of a large
C number of employees. [799-F, GI
D
3.2. A distinction moreover exists between a proven case of mass
cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of
corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved.
[799-H; 800-AI
3.3. Only in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable
to separate tainted cases from the non-tainted cases, en-masse orders of
termination could have been issued. [801-DJ
Bihar School Examinution Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha, 119701 I
E SCC 648, Anamica Mishra v. UP. Public Service Commission, 119901 Supp.
SCC 692, SP. Biswas v. State Bunk of India, 119911 Supp. 2 SCC 354, Union
Territory ofChundigarh v. Dilbagh .\high. [199311SCC154, Krishan Yadav
v. State of Haryana, [199414 SCC 165, Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey.
[19941 5 SCC 663, Hanuman Prusad v. Union of lndiu, 11996110 SCC 742,
F Union of India v. 0. Chakradhar, 12002) 3 SCC 146, B. Ramanjini v. Stute of
A.P .. 1200215SCC533, Pritpul Singh v. State of Haryuna, 119941 5 SCC
695, Pramod lahudas v. State (Jf Maharashtra, [19961 to SCC 749, P.S.
Sathappan v. Andhra Bank ltd., 120041 11 SCC 672, M.P. Gopalakrishnan
Nair v. State of Kera/a, 120051 11 SCC 45, Haryana St..ite Coop. land
Development Bank v. Nee/am, 120051 5 SCC 91, Benny TD. v. Registrar of
G Cooperative Societies, 119981 5 SCC 269, Unkar Lal Bajaj v. Union on India,
[20031 2 SCC 673, Union of India v. Rajesh P. U Puthuvalnikathu, (2003( 7
SCC 285, Ashok Lenka v. Rishi Dikshit, (2006) 4 SCALE 519 and Ajay Hasia
v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, [ 19811 I SCC 722, referred to.
4.1. Two senior Judges who had headed the Committee should not have
H been made part of the Bench. It was not a case where the doctrine of necessity
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB
777
was required to be invoked. It may be that the counsel appearing on behalf of A
the Judicial Officers did not object to the Judges who were members of the
Committee to hear the matter. (814-E(
4.2. The writ petitioners, thus, might have waived their right to raise a
contention as regard bias on the part of the Hon'ble Judges but the same would
not mean that this Court would ignore such a vital fact. It was clearly a case B
where the Hon'ble Judges should have recused themselves from hearing the
matter. It was for them to remind themselves that Justice is not only done but
manifestly seen to be done. (815-F, G(
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC C
202, relied on.
Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, [1976) 3 SCC 585, State of
Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, Ashok Kumar
Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) Supp. SCR 657, Kumaon Manda! Vikas
Nigam Ltd v. Girja Shankar Pant, [2001) 1 SCC 182, Rupa Hurra v. Ashok D
Hurra, (20021 4 SCC 388 and M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of
M.P., [200418 SCC 788 referred to.
.
In Re; Pinochet (19991 I All ER 577 and AWG Group Limited v.
Morrison, (200611 All ER 967, referred to.
5. The apprehension in the mind of judicial officers that inferences had
been drawn on the basis of non-existent facts cannot be ruled out. It was in
the aforementioned premise, that the officers should have at least been given
E
an opportunity to have a look at the reports on the basis whereof they had
been categorized as tainted officers. It is not possible to understand, if
ultimately, in the opinion of the High Court, the Judicial Offices were found F
to be entitled to look at the said report, why the copies thereof were not made
available to them or at least why inspection thereof was not given at an
appropriate time so as to enable them to make their submissions. Curiously
enough only when after the oral submissions were over and written
submissions have been filed, although the writ petition belonging to other G
categories of services were being heard, the arguments advanced on behalf of
the Judicial Officers were directed to be closed and only on the next date when
the counsel had no occasion to make comments upon the reports, the same
were read out in the Court and allowed to be inspected by the counsel. It may
be that the Superior Judiciary always makes endeavours to deal with the
judicial officers in all seriousness it deserves: but then such harsh H
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A punishment may be meted out only when there are sufficient materials on
record so as to enable it to satisfy itself upon adopting a fair procedure. The
Judicial Officers were unfairly treated by the High Court. (818-B-Fl
6. The High Court was probably enthralled by the media reports that
two of the wards of its sitting Judges obtained appointment wrongly. It is,
B however, stated at the Bar that they were toppers of the Batch and in the First
Information Reports, their names had not been mentioned. Only because
wards of sitting Judges obtained employment, the same by itself would not
give rise to a presumption that everything was not well in the selection making
process. [818-F, GI
c
7. The impugned judgment as also the orders of the State Government
and the High Court are, thus, liable to be set aside. Although the impugned
judgments cannot be sustained, the interest of justice would be sub-served if
the matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matters
afresh. However, with a view to segregate between the tainted and the nonD tainted and that in the interest of justice the High Court is requested to
constitute two independent scrutiny committees - one relating to the executive
officers and the other relating to the judicial officers. (819-D, El
Per Bhandari, J (concurring with the conclusions and findings on all
the issues except on the issue of propriety of hearing of the matter by the
E Judges who were on the Committee! :
F
G
I.I. The peculiar facts of this case which need to be highlighted are
that some of the candidates have worked for about three years and their
services were terminated only on the basis of criminal investigation which
was at the initial stage. The termination of their services as a consequence of
cancellation of selection would not only prejudice their interests seriously,
but would ruin their entire future career. f 836-BJ
1.2. It may be pertinent to mention that during the said period there
has been no allegation regarding the integrity or efficiency of these officers.
(836-Cf
2. A close scrutiny of the facts of this case clearly reveals that the
judicial officers did not get a fair treatment by the High Court. They were not
given copies of the Report and other material on which reliance was placed
and they virtually had no chance of making effective representation before
H the Committee or any other forum where they could ventilate their grievances
.•
-
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB
779
and present their point of view. [836-F[
Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, (2003[ 7 SCC 285,
Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (19911[ Supp. SCC 692,
SP. Biswas v. State Bank of India, [1991[ Supp. 2 SCC 354, Onkar Lal Bajaj
A
v. Union of India, (2003[ 2 SCC 673, Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow,
[1976[ 3 SCC 585, State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, [1982[ B
2 SCC 463 and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [ 19851 Supp. SCR
657, referred to.
3. The High Court has not considered the case in the proper
perspective. The consequences of en masse cancellation would carry a big
stigma particularly on cancellation of the selections which took place because C
of serious charges of corruption. The question arises whether for the misdeeds
of some candidates, honest and good candidates should also suffer on en masse
cancellation leading to termination of their services. Should those honest
candidates be compelled to suffer without there being any fault on their part
just because the respondents find it difficult to segregate the cases of tainted D
candidates from the other candidates? The task may be difficult for the
respondents, but in the interest of all concerned and particularly in the
interest of honest candidates, the State must undertake this task. The
unscrupulous candidates should not be allowed to damage the entire system
in such a manner where innocent people also st1ffer great ignominy and
stigma. (836-H; 837-A-C[
E
Kumaon Mnda/ Nigam ltd. v. Gilja Shankar Pant, [2001[ I SCC 182
and Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, [20021 4 SCC 388 referred, to.
Jn Re: Pinochet (1999[ 1 All ER 577, referred to.
16 Ha/sbury's laws of England, (4th Edn.) Para 1471, referred to.
F
4.1. There is not merit in the submission of the appellants that the two
members of the committee (appointed by the High Court) should not have been
part of the Full Bench constituted by the Chief Justice. Jn these cases, before
hearing commenced, the counsel appearing for the appellants clearly consented
to hearing of the matter by the Judges of the Full Bench. After giving clear G
consent before the High Court, they cannot be permitted to make any grievance
before this Court. This tendency should not be encouraged. (838-C, D[
4.2. Jn the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are not
justified in making any grievance before this Court regarding the hearing of
the cases by the Full Bench of which the two Judges, who had submitted the H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A Report, were also members. Admittedly, those Judges constituting the Full
Hench had no interest of any kind in deciding the matter one way or the other.
The appellants before the commencement of hearing categorically submitted
that they had no objection whatsoever to the hearing of the matter by the said
Full Bench. Even assuming, those Judge had any bias against the appellants,
B the appellants had waived their right, if any. In these circumstances, the
doctrine of 'waiver' is fully applicable. [840-C-El
Kammins Ballrooms Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) ltd., (19701
2 All ER 871, Earl of Darnley v. London, Chatham and Dover Rly Co., (1867)
LR 2 HL 43, Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd.,
C (1947) KB 130, Scherer v. Wahlstrom Tax Civ. APP., 318 S.W. 2d 456, Smith
v. Mcknight Tax Civ, App., 240 S.W, 2d 368, Covington Virginian v. Woods 29
S.E. 2d, 406 and Missouri State life Ins. Co. v. le Fevre, Tex 10 S.W. 2d 267,
referred to.
5. Another significant aspect of this matter is that the two Judges (who
D were part of the Committee) were not impleaded as parties in the writ petition
before the high Court and they have not been impleaded as parties in these
appeals before this Court. In case, the appellants were so keen to level
allegations against those two Judges, the appellants ought to have impleaded
them as parties at least before this Court (with the permission of the Court).
This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice.
E
1842-A, BJ
F
Joseph Vilangandan v. Executil/IJ Engineer, [1978) 3 SCC 36 and Mis.
Erusian Equipment and Chemical Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (·1975) l SCC
70, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3411-3421 of
2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.7.2003 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. Nos. 8423, 8434, 8585, 8587, 8592,
G 8595, 8740, 8741, 8742, 8954. 8957 of2002.
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3422, 3410, 3409, 3405-3408, 3456-59, 3446-3447,
3402,3449-3455,3463-64,3460,3401,3445,3399,3404,3444,3441,3439,34283436,3440,3438,3442,3437,3403,3427,3461,3400,3477,3475,3423,3448,
H 3472-74, 3489, 3491 of2005 and W.P (C) No. 14 of2004.
~·
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON "·STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.]
78)
Samp Singh, Add[. Adv. Gen of Punjab, R.K. Rath ore, AAG of Punjab, A
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, A.K. Ganguli, Mahabir Singh, B.S. Malik, Rajiv Atma R_am,
Rakesh Dwivedi, P.P. Rao, Manoj Swamp, Aspj~.~. Mohan, Uday Gupta, Neeraj
Sharma, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Madhusmita Bora, Nikhil
Jain, D. Mahesh Babu, Naresh Kumar, Nidhesh Gupta, Nidhi Gupta, Vinod
Shukla, S. Janani, Dinesh Verma, Suresh Kumari, A.P. Mohanty, J.P. Tripathi, B
S.C. Paul, G.S. Mann, Roopa Paul, Chanchal Goel, Rekha Pandey, Sushi!
Kumar Jain, Prathibha Jain, Ram Niwas, A.P. Dhanija, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad
Singhania, Pradeep Agarwal, Balkrishan Sharma, Gurminder Singh Rani
Maheshwari, Pratibha Jain, Puneet Bali, Prabhjit Jauhar, Anita Narwal, S.S.
Jauhar, S.B. Upadhyay, Shiv Mangat Shanna, Sanjay Das, Ajay Bansal, Neeraj
Kumar Jain, Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ugra C
Shankar Prasad, Ashok K. Mahajan, ParamjitBatta, Vineet Bhagat, Debasis
Misra, Rajshekhar Rao, Nikhil Nayyar, Vipin Gogia, Jaspreet Gogia, Gurinder
P. Singh, K.K. Gogia, Jayashree Anand, Kamna Karmahali, Rana Ranjit Singh,
R.C. Kohil, P.N. Puri, Vimla Sinha, Abhushek Chaudhary, Gaurav Bhatia, Saad
Shervani, Niranjana Singh, Gaurav Liberahan, Adarsh Upadhyay, Arun K.
Sinha, Rakesh Singh, Mukesh Kumar Sinha, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur D
(for Mis. Amputham Aruna & Co.,) Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Bimal Roy Jad and
M.P. Shorawala for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. The framers of the Constitution of India created some E
Constitutional Institlttions to uphold the Constitutional values; Public Service
Commission being one of them. Article 315 of the Constitution of India
mandates that there shall be a Public Service Commission for the Union and
a Public Service Commission for each of the State. Article 320 provides for
the functions of the Public Service Commission stating that it is the duty of F
the Union Public Service Commission and the State Public Service
Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the
Union and the services of the State respectively. In relation to certain matters
the Union of India and the States are enjoined with the duties to consult the
Public Service Commission. With a view to uphold the dignity and
independence of the Public Service Commission, the salaries, allowances and G
pensions payable to the members or staff of the Commission, are directed to
be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and/or the Consolidated Fund
of the State. A Chairman of Public Service Commission is removable only by
following the procedure laid down under the Constitution of India.
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A
One Shri Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu was the Chairman of the Punjab
Public Service Commission between 1996 to 2002. Allegations were made
against him that he got a large number of persons appointed on extraneous
consideration including monetary consideration. Such appointments were said
to have been made during the period 1998 to 2001. Raids were conducted in
his house on more than one occasion. A large sum of money (about Rs. 16
B crores) was recovered from his custody and other relatives. Two First
Information Reports; one on 25.3.2002 being FIR No. 7/02 and the other on
30.4.2002 being FIR No. 24/02; were lodged against him in that behalf. In the
said First Information Reports nine officers of PCS (Executive Branch) were
named but later on the allegations against two of them, viz., Rahul and Randip
C were withdrawn. As against sixty three officers involved in the PCS allied
services; First Information Report was lodged only against one Kamaljeet
Singh. So far as appointment to the posts of Tehsildar is concerned, FIR was
lodged against none.
Result sheets of the nominated candidates were seized on 17.5.2002.
D Answer sheets of PCS (Executive Branch) were also seized. On or about
21.5.2002 the Vigilance Bureau of the State of Punjab wrote a letter to the Chief
Secretary, Punjab alleging that most of the examinations held during the
period of Shri Sidhu were tainted. On the next day, a memorandum of 90 pages
was issued. So far as the nominated candidates are concerned, Vigilance
E Department of State, as noticed hereinbefore, received the answer sheets for
1998 examination and sent a report to the investigating agency on 21.5.2002.
On that date itself the nominated candidates were given charge of the Executive
Magistrate but on the next date, i.e., on 22.5.2002, the Vigilance Bureau on
purported receipt of the details of interview of nominated candidates sent a
note to a Chief Secretary whereupon orders of termination were passed on
F 23.5.2002. All the officers in the category of nominated executive officers were
about to complete their period of probation. The services of the nominated
candidates (Class I Officers) were terminated simpliciter purported to be in
terms of the Rules, i.e., by terminating the probation.
The appellants herein comprise of four categories of officers, that is to
G say, (I) Direct recruits in Executive Class I. In the said category services of
28 persons were terminated. (2) Direct recruits (Allied etc.) being in Executive
Class II. In the said category services of 63 persons were terminated. (3)
Nominated candidates being in Executive Class I. Services of 18 persons from
the said category were terminated. (4) Judicial Officers. Judicial Officers were
H appointed in four batches. Four examinations were held for the respective
.
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STA TE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.]
783
recruitment years of 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.
On the judicial side, following vacancies existed:
1998
21
1999
14
2000
8
2001
21
Total
64
The number of officers whose services were terminated in the
aforementioned batches are 21, 14, 8, 21 respectively totalling 64 persons
respectively.
A
B
c
A further vigilance report was made on 7.6.2002. Admittedly no D
appointment was made out from the 2001 batch.
Services of the Direct Recruit Executive Class I and Class II were
terminated by way of dismissal from services vide order dated 24.8.2002 only
on the premise that the criminal prosecution had been initiated against the
aforementioned Shri Sidhu.
Besides the aforementioned categories some candidates also belong to
distinct categories, viz., Freedom Fighter, Handicapped, SCOP, etc.
So far as the Judicial Officers are concerned, indisputably,. the High
Court acted on the basis of media reports alleging that wards of some sitting
Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court have been favoured by the
Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Chief Justice of the High
Court constituted a Committee chaired by a senior Judge. On a request made
by the High Court answer sheets of nine candidates were handed over to the
said Committee on 30.5.2002. No other record was, however: made available
to the Committee. A report was submitted by the said Committee wherein
recommendations were made that the appointments made of the judicial officers
in all the four batches should stand cancelled although selection of the
officers from the 1998 batch was not in question. The said report, however,
was accepted by the Full Court.
784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.
A
When the recommendations of the High Court were received by the
Government of Punjab, a query was raised as to on what basis the
recommendations for cancellation of the appointments of the 1998 batch
candidates were made. Thereupon, another Committee was constituted. The
Chairman of the said Committee was a member of the earlier Committee. The
report of the Committee thereafter was again placed before the Full Court and
B the same was approved on 12.8.2002. The services of the Judicial Officers
were terminated on 27.9.2002.
Subsequent to the said orders of dismissal, however, no further action
was taken by the State for cancellation of other examinations or termination
C of the officers belonging to other services. However, in regard to the
examinations held in respect of the other posts, the Governor of Punjab
appointed a committee on 20th July, 2004. A report was submitted by the said
Committee on 20th October, 2004 stating that a distinction is possible to be
made between the tainted and the non-tainted officers. It made some
suggestions and recommendations in relation to the selection process to be
D resorted to and the appointments to be made in future.
At this juncture, we may take note of some other relevant facts. Upon
commencement of the investigation by the Vigilance Bureau one Jagman
Singh became an approver. He purported to have made a statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a learned Magistrate on
E 24.1.2002. Two other alleged accomplices of Shri Sidhu, viz., Shri Prem Sagar
and Shri Paramjit Singh also allegedly made their statements in term of Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a learned Magistrate on 13.5.2002.
On the basis of the said statements; raids for finding out other and further
incriminating materials were conducted on 19th April, 2002 at different places
p including the lockers/fixed deposits/bank accounts purported to have been
opened by Shri Sidhu in his own name as also in the name of his relatives.
Approximately a sum of Rs. 16 crores was recovered during the said raids.
The Appellants herein along with some others being aggrieved by the
said actions on the part of the State filed a large number of writ petitions
G before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The said writ petitions ultimately came up for ht:aring before a Full
Bench of the said High Court. Two of the members of the said Bench were
Chairmen of the two committees appointed by the learned Chief Justice.
H
At the hearing of the said writ petition, however, the learned counsel
..
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.]
785
appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners stated that they had no objection A
to the said Hon 'hie Judges hearing the writ petitions. On or about 30th
January, 2002, the Appellants - Judicial Officers filed an application for supply
of copies of the reports as also the documents including the answer books
which had been relied upon by the High Court at one point of time or the
other for the purpose of passing the orders of termination. The High Court
claimed privilege as regards the reports of the Committee. The State of Punjab B
also took a stand that the contents of the report of the Vigilance Bureau could
not be disclosed, as by reasons thereof, the investigation of the case may be
put in jeopardy. Oral submissions on behalf of the Judicial Officers were
closed on 5.2.2003 and they were asked to file written submissions by 6.2.2003;
/
but curiously, however, on 6.2.2003, the reports of the Committee as also the C
mark-sheets were made available for inspection of the learned counsel.
During hearing before the High court, interestingly, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State made a statement that those candidates who
had become successful in the subsequent re-conducted interviews or reconducted examinations, as the case may be, shall be taken back in service D
and their seniority would be maintained.
The High Court reserved its judgment on 5.3.2003. On that date, some
records were kept in a sealed cover. By reason of the impugned judgment
which was delivered on 7.7.2003, the writ petitions were dismissed.
The main contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners before the
High Court were:
(I)
in terminating the services, the State committed gross violation
of the provisions of Article 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution
E
of India;
F
(2)
Principles of natural justice were completely given a go-by by
the Stae in passing the impugned orders oftermination.
(3)
Some of the Appellants having successfully completed three
years of probation, they would be deemed to have been confirmed G
in terms of Rule 23 of the 1976 Rules and, thus, their services
could not have been terminated without holding regular inquiry
in terms of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1970 (for short, 'the 1970 Rules');
(4)
In any event, Rule 23 of the 1970 Rules could not have been H
786
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.
invoked for dispensing with the services of such of the
Appellants as it had not been shown that their work, conduct
and performance were unsatisfactory during the period of
probation;
(5)
No proper material by way of admissible evidence having been
B
made available, on the basis whereof the State could form a
bona fide opinion that the entire selection processes were tainted,
the impugned orders of termination must be held to be bad in
law.
C that:
D
E
F
G
The contentions raised on behalf of the State, on the other hand, were
(I) Shri Sidhu during his tenure from September, 1996 to March 26,
2002 exercised the powers of the Commission himself to the
exclusion of all other members, which itself establishes that the
selection processes were bad in law;
(2)
Writ petitions were filed by the members of the State Commission
contending that Shri Sidhu had manipulated the system for
ensuring the selection of only those who had paid money or had
recommendations of the high authorities.
(3)
The satisfaction of the. State was based upon the report of the
Vigilance Bureau which included the statements made by Shri
Jagman Singh which clearly pointed to the guilt of Shri Sidhu as
he had disclosed that that Shri Sidhu had made a large number
of appointments of the prospective candidates and during
investigation it was revealed that question papers and answer
scripts were smuggled out of the headquarters of the Commission
and at times, blank answer sheets had been handed over to the
candidates and special instructions had also been issued to the
examiners to award higher marks to the less meritorious
candidates and at the same time, award less marks to the more
meritorious candidates.
(5)
Shri Sindhu amassed assets worth Rs. 22 crores during his
chairmanship by adopting illegal means.
(6)
The entire selection process was completely vitiated and it was
not possible to separate the meritorious candidates from the
H
others although the decision to terminate all the appointments
lNDERPREET SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB [S.B SINHA, J.]
787
and cancellation of all the examinations was fair and bona fide. A
The contentions raised on behalf of the High Court were that:
(I) The services of the judicial officers were terminated as it came
to light that the recommendations made during the tenure of 3hri
Sidhu were manipulated, unfair and vitiated in law.
(2)
Two sub-committees were constituted to look into the illegalities
and irregularities committed by the Commission in the matter of
selection of the judicial officers and the reports submitted by
them were rightly accepted by the Full Court, pursuant to and
in furtherance whereof the State Government terminated their
services.
The High Court in passing the impugned judgment considered the
aforementioned submissions of the parties. It noticed a large number of
decisions and opined that the foilowing propositions be culled out therefrom:
B
c
"(i) The rules of natural justice are not required to be followed in D
cases of cancellation of selection which is vitiated due to fraud,
manipulation, corruption or large scale irregularities and illegalities
committed by those responsible for conducting the selection.
(ii) Even if some deserving candidates suffer on account of cancellation
of such selection, the decision taken by the competent authority E
cannot be castigated as arbitrary or unreasonable.
(iii) The Court cannot sustain the selection of some persons where the
process of selection is vitiated due to manipulations, fraud etc. and
it is in public interest that the entire selection is nullified.
(iv) The court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the competent
authority. If some tangible material is available with the government
for forming an opinion that the selection is tainted, the court cannot
interfere with its decision."
F
The Full Bench of the High Court, however, did not ll)ake any endeavour G
to make any distinction between the cases of different categories of officers,
but relying on or on the basis of the reports and documents submitted by
the Vigilance Bureau opined that the same revealed the following features:
(a) Either question papers were leaked to the candidates or instructions
H
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A
were given to the examiners to give higher marks.
B
c
D
(b) In some cases, the marks awarded to the candidates were
manipulated and upgraded.
(c) The result-sheets recovered from the Commission revealed that
most of the candidates who paid money had been given very high
marks in the interview.
(d) Those candidates who secured high marks in the written examintion
were given poor marks in the interview either because they were not
to be selected and they had not paid money or for shunting them to
the Allied Services.
( e) The procedure for appointment of examiners was entirely controlled
by Shri Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu and he gave instructions for award
of specific marks to the chosen candidates."
(f) Some of the irregularities found in the answer-books of some of the
candidates selected for direct recruitment were taken into consideration
by the High Court by way of illustration in arriving at its findings.
The High Court moreover pointed out some irregularities found in the
answer sheets of the some of the candidates in regard whereto 13 purported
E instances were noticed by it. Cases of some of the candidates who were
denied selection to PCS (EB) by giving unusually low marks in the interview
were highlighted in the judgment. As many as nine such cases were noticed
to have been belonging to this category of irregularities.