NEW DELHI, Aug 29: The Supreme Court on Thursday did not find any proof of charges of “misbehaviour” against an Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) member in the examination paper leak case and directed revocation of her suspension forthwith.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar answered the Presidential Reference Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India which deals with removal and suspension of the chairman or member of a public service commission and said no charges were made out against APPSC member Mepung Tadar Bage.
“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,” the bench said.
Related Posts:
It added, “In view of the foregoing, the inescapable conclusion on the allegations of charges as made in the reference is that the allegations 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 President of India that the charges as alleged do not bring about any act of ‘misbehaviour’ by Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage for taking action within its contours.”
The bench said the court further recommends that her suspension be revoked forthwith and she would be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits.
The top court also found fault with the decision of the state government to recommend for Presidential reference under Article 317 (1) which contemplates that the chairman or any other member of a public service commission can only be removed by an order of the president of India on the ground of misbehaviour.
It further contemplates that the said misbehaviour may be proved by inquiry before the Supreme Court 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 president of India.
“In our view, the act of the State requesting the President of India to initiate the removal of the Respondent is arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory,” the bench said in its 77-page verdict.
It noted that after the leakage of the question paper for Mains Examination for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) came to light, the state made a reference to the Inquiry Committee and the chairman and fellow members of the APPSC submitted their resignations on moral grounds and for other reasons.
The bench noted that following the resignation, two members of the commission were sworn in as the state chief information commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh and as chairperson of the Arunachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission.
“If the members of the APPSC who were allegedly collectively found involved in the paper leak as per the letter of Chief Minister, later resigned and got assignment of new post by the State, it is a question to ponder upon, which ought to be looked into by the State especially so when Article 319(d) of the Constitution of India bars members of a State Public Service Commission from taking up any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State after they cease to be in office,” the bench said.
It added that in the court’s view, if the members were collectively involved, the act of the state government bequeathing responsibility upon such members, giving them assignment of posts having responsibilities, clearly goes to indicate that there was nothing against the chairman or any member of the commission showing their indictment in a personal capacity of committing any act or omission which may prove misbehaviour on their part.
“In view of the above, on taking a holistic approach to the charges framed in the present reference and having gone through the voluminous record and evidence which has been brought before us, juxtaposed against the body of judicial precedent in the form of previous reports under Article 317 of the Constitution of India which guide our decision-making in the present reference, it is difficult to see how the allegation of ‘misbehaviour’ on the part of the Respondent has been proved,” the bench said.
It added that it is true that the members of the public service commission must be held to higher standards and their conduct must be unimpeachable, but where the consequence of our fact-finding inquiry would be the removal of the chairman or member from a constitutional office, the court must be abundantly cautioned and tread carefully.
“In the present case, after appreciation of evidence, we 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,” the top court said, adding that the intent of Article 317 of the Constitution of India was to give a higher degree of protection to the members of the public service commission by eliminating political or any pressure otherwise. (PTI)
