REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADVISORY JURISDICTION
Reference No. 1/2006
U/A 317 (I) of the Constitution of India, CPSC
OPINION
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI
Under Clause (1) of Article 317, the President of India
referred the matter to the Supreme Court of India for an
inquiry and report as to whether Shri Ashok Darbari,
Chairman of the Chattisgarh Public Service Commission ought
to be removed from the office of Chairman of the Commission
on the grounds of misbehaviour. This was done by the
President pursuant to the request made by the Governor of
Chattisgarh on 24.2.2006 containing certain allegations of
misbehaviour against the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission. Notice was given to the Chairman of the Public
Service Commission, Attorney General of India and also the
Advocate General of the State of Chattisgarh. On behalf of the
State, certain specific allegations have been made. The State
proposed to adduce evidence in support of the allegations. 20
witnesses were examined in support of the allegations and 3
witnesses were examined in support of the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission. Several documents were also
produced.
2.
We heard the Shri Amarendra Sharan, ASG, Additional
Advocate General of the State of Chattisgarh and also learned
Senior Counsel Shri S.K. Gambhir for the Chattisgarh PSC
and also Shri Vivek K. Tankha, learned senior Counsel on
behalf of Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman, PSC.
3.
The State PSC is constituted under Article 315 of the
Constitution. Constitutional makers decided to have an
independent body to recruit civil servants by open competition
and with that object, an independent and impartial body was
proposed to be constituted as the Public Service Commission.
With a view to uphold the dignity and independence of the
body, salaries, allowance and pension payable to the members
of the staff of the Commission are to be charged on the
Consolidated Fund of the State and the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission is removable only by following the
procedure laid down under the Constitution of India. Under
sub-clause (1) of Article 317, the Chairman or any member of
the 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, on a
report that the Chairman or such other member, ought to be
removed from the office. Article 317 of the Constitution does
not define ‘misbehaviour’ or enumerate what acts would
constitute ‘misbehaviour’. It is only after a fact finding inquiry
is held, it could be said whether the alleged acts committed by
the Chairman amount to ‘misbehaviour’. The Chairman of the
Public Service Commission is expected to show absolute
integrity and impartiality in exercising the powers and duties
as Chairman. His actions shall be transparent and he shall
discharge his functions with utmost sincerity and integrity. If
there is any failure on his part, or he commits any act which is
not befitting the honour and prestige as a Chairman of the
Public Service Commission, it would amount to misbehaviour
as contemplated under the Constitution. If it is proved that he
has shown any favour to the candidate during the selection
process, that would certainly be an act of misbehaviour. The
charges levelled against the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission Shri Ashok Darbari are to be viewed in this
background.
4.
It is alleged that ever since Shri Ashok Darbari had been
appointed, there were complaints in respect of his working
ability and impartiality as Chairman of the Public Service
Commission. In this case, four specific charges have been
alleged against Shri Ashok Darbari. We will consider each
charge allegedly made against him.
5.
The first charge made against him is that he committed
grave irregularities and mismanagement in conducting the
preliminary examination conducted by the Chattisgarh Public
Service Commission for the year 2005. To prove this charge,
PW1, PW 10, PW 16, PW 17, PW 18, PW 19, PW 20 and RW 1
were examined. It may be noticed that for the conduct of the
examination, there is Controller of Examinations in the Public
Service Commission. The Chairman along with other
members of the Commission decide the policies regarding
priorities and dates of examination. The main complaint
regarding the Preliminary Civil Examination held in 2005 was
that for General Studies paper, there was a mixing up of model
answer keys which prompted the leader of a political party to
make a complaint to the Chief Minister. RW 2 who was the
Secretary to the Governor deposed that the answer keys and
the questions got mixed up due to computer error. The
witnesses examined did not depose that there was any
negligence on the part of the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission. A series of individual complaints have been
referred to but in these matters, the Chairman of the Public
Service Commission was not found responsible. The Deputy
Controller of Examinations was examined as PW 10. He was
specifically asked whether Mr. Ashok Darbari was responsible
for the irregularities, if any and he could not give a satisfactory
answer to these questions. It has come in evidence that on
the basis of irregularities, a departmental inquiry was initiated
by the then Controller of Examinations and that PW 10 was a
witness in the departmental inquiry and he gave evidence
against the then Controller of Examinations. All these facts
would only indicate that the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission was unnecessarily dragged on to this controversy
and in view of the evidence adduced, it is clear that if any
irregularities had taken place in the conduct of the
examination, it was due to the fault of some of the officers of
the Public Service Commission and not by Shri Ashok Darbari,
Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
6.
The second charge against Shri Ashok Darbari,
Chairman of the Public Service Commission was that he had
unauthorisedly misused the Government vehicles, drivers and
orderlies which were provided to him during his officiation in
the post of Director General of Police and he had not
surrendered his vehicles or discharged the drivers or orderlies
from service, after his appointment on 21.10.2004 as the
Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Prior to the
appointment of Shri Ashok Darbari as the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission, he was Director General of Police
of the State of Chattisgarh. Shri Ashok Darbari who was
examined as RW 1 stated that the Chief Minister required him
to join as Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Till
July 2004, Shri Ashok Darbari was continuing as DGP of
Chattisgarh. A person who was much junior to him was
proposed to be appointed as DGP of the State. This was
approved by the Central Ministry of Home Affairs and at that
time the Chief Minister required him to join as the Chairman
of the Public Service Commission. As Shri Ashok Darbari had
been the Director General of Police of the State which was
affected by Naxalites, he required additional police protection
and the security cover included security vehicles, a motor
cycle and some staff members in the form of guards and
orderlies. RW 1 deposed that the Chief Minister agreed to give
the security cover and it was under these circumstances that
some of the vehicles were being used by him. The fact that
these vehicles were being used must have been with the
consent of the departmental authorities. They could have very
well withdrawn the security arrangements given to Shri Ashok
Darbari. There is no case that he willfully disobeyed any
orders. From the allegations made against Shri Darbari, it
could only be assumed that he being ex-DGP of the Naxalite
affected State, was given some additional security while
discharging his duties as the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission. Hence, we are unable to find any proved
misbehaviour and impropriety on his part.
7.
The third allegation made against Shri Ashok Darbari is
that he claimed house rent allowance not admissible to him
under law. It was contended that as the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission, he was entitled to the perquisites
of a Grade I Officer of the State Government and the main
allegation was that Shri Ashok Darbari was staying in a police
mess and yet he was drawing HRA which was not admissible
to him. Shri Ashok Darbari has explained that after his
assumption of office, he requested the Chief Secretary to allot
the official residence which was formerly occupied by his
predecessor-in-office but Mr. Ashok Darbari was not allotted
the building and he had no other option but to continue to
occupy a room in the “Police Club” which was the safe place
available to him and all retired IPS Officers are entitled to use
the mess during their lifetime. He also received
communication from the department that he was entitled to
HRA @ 15% as per the rules. To explain the position further,
the Accountant General of the State of Chattisgarh was
examined as RW 3 and he deposed that Rule 14 and 18 did
not say anything about house rent allowance and Rule 19
deals with House Rent Allowance and under Rule 2(f)
Chairman is governed by Rule 19 and in view of Rule 19
coupled with Rule 2 (f), the HRA was applicable to the
Chairman as per the rules issued by the Chattisgarh
Government and he also deposed that on 10.4.2006, all the
doubts regarding the admissibility of allowance stood clarified
and there was nothing irregular in Shri Ashok Darbari
claiming the house rent allowance. We do not find any basis
for the allegation made against the Chairman, Chattisgarh
Public Service Commission. On appointment as Chairman of
Public Service Commission, the State Government should have
provided him official quarters befitting the honour and
respectability of the office which he occupied. The State had
not provided any such building at the disposal of the
Chairman and he had to stay in the police mess almost
throughout his career as the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission. It is quite surprising that the Chairman, Public
Service Commission was forced to occupy the police mess and
had to suffer these type of allegations that he had drawn HRA
for the period he had stayed in the police mess.
8.
The fourth allegation made against Shri Ashok Darbari is
that in discharging his official functions as the Chairman of
the Public Service Commission, he acted in a dictatorial
manner and that his style of functioning was objectionable.
The Chairman of the Public Service Commission as RW 1
deposed that when he took over as Chairman of the Public
Service Commission, there were four other members and 50%
of them did not belong to Government service having 10 years
experience as provided for under proviso 1 of clause (1) of
Article 316 of the Constitution. Many of them were appointed
on account of their political background. He further deposed
that all these members wanted to know the confidential
matters like where the question papers were printed and who
sets the question papers, etc. Some of the members gave a list
of persons who should be appointed as the question paper
setters. Though the meetings of the committees were on fixed
schedules, these members used to come very late. It is alleged
that these members did not like the Chairman taking strict
actions regarding the conduct of the examination and other
official functions. So in respect of the charge alleged that Shri
Ashok Darbari acted in a dictatorial manner, the details are
not divulged and no evidence has been adduced to show in
what manner Shri Ashok Darbari acted in dictatorial manner.
As regards the conduct of the examination, some problem had
arisen and they cannot be attributed to Shri Ashok Darbari
and the Controller of Examinations and some other officials
were responsible for committing such irregularities. The
postponement of examination was also decided upon by the
Commission and other members also participated in that
meeting. RW 1 was extensively cross-examined by the learned
Counsel for the State but nothing has been brought out in his
evidence as to how he had acted in a dictatorial manner. We
are unable to find any merits in this allegation. We hold that
Shri Ashok Darbari has not exhibited any improper behaviour
and all the charges levelled against him are baseless and there
is not even prima facie proof of misbehaviour on the part of
Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman of the Public Service
Commission.
9.
In our opinion, there is no evidence of proved
misbehaviour against Shri Ashok Darbari. Hence, reference is
answered in negative and it is deemed that he should have
continued in his office till the time his appointment might
ordinarily had come to an end. As a result, he should be given
all pecuniary benefits which would have been due to him but
for the suspension.
The reference stands answered
accordingly.
………………………………….CJI
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
……………………………………J.
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
…………………………………..J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)
New Delhi
July 08, 2009.