REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 431 of  2008

Ram Kumar Kashyap & Anr.                                         …. Petitioner  

Versus

Union of India & Anr.                               …. Respondents  

With

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 511 of  2008

And

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of  2008

J U D G M E N T  

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI

1.   The  Chairman  and  8  members  of  the  Haryana  Public  Service  

Commission were placed under suspension on  09.08.2008 by Governor  

of the State of  Haryana.   A Reference was made under Article 317(1) of  

the Constitution of India by the Hon’ble President of India.  In these Writ  

Petitions the petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari for quashing  

the Reference made on 31.07.2008 by the Hon’ble President of  India

under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India and also for a direction  

that the order of suspension dated 09.08.2008 passed by the Governor of  

State  of  Haryana  be declared as illegal  and be quashed.   When the  

matter came up for consideration, learned Senior Counsel  appearing for  

the petitioners submitted that the first prayer  for the writ of certiorari  to  

quash the order of Reference under Article 317 (1) of the Constitution of  

India  is  not  pressed.    Therefore,  the  only  question  that  arises  for  

consideration  in  these Writ  Petitions   is  whether  the  suspension  of  8  

Members  and  the  Chairman  of  Public  Service  Commission  by  the  

Governor of Haryana by order dated 09.08.2008 is liable to be set aside  

or not.

2.  We heard  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the  petitioners  and  also  

counsel for the respondents.  The main grievance  of the petitioners is  

that they were neither given show cause notice nor an opportunity  to be  

heard  before   the  order  of  suspension  was  issued  and  thereby  the  

principle  of  natural  justice  has  been  violated.  Before  examining  their  

submissions, it is necessary to consider the language of the constitutional  

provisions which deal with the removal and suspension of the members  

of Public Service Commissions. Article 317 of the Constitution reads as  

follows:  

2

"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  enquiry  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 members, as the case may be,--  (a) as 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.  

(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 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 to be guilty of misbehaviour."  

[emphasis supplied]

3

3. Article 317 makes it amply clear as to how the members of the Public  

Service  Commission  are  liable  to  be  removed  from  office  and  the  

founding fathers of our Constitution incorporated this procedure in order  

to give the Chairman and Members security of tenure to safeguard them  

against motivated or wrong charges of misbehavior. The obvious intent  

behind the same is  to protect  them from undue political  pressures or  

personal  favoritism and  vendetta  thereby  enabling  the  Public  Service  

Commissions to discharge their constitutional obligations in full measure.

4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the passing of the  

common order of  suspension by the Hon'ble Governor of  the State of  

Haryana  would  cause  adverse  civil  consequences,  they  deserved  a  

notice and an opportunity of being heard before such order was passed.  

The petitioners have cited several judgments of this court such as those  

delivered in  State of Orissa v.  Dr. (Miss) Bina Pani Dei and others  

(AIR  1967  SC  1269);  Sayeedur  Rehman v.  The  State  of  Bihar  &  

others  ,   (1973) 3 SCC 333; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & others, (1980)  

4  SCC  379;  and  Olga  Tellis  &  others v.  Bombay  Municipal   

Corporation  &  others, (1985)  3  SCC  545,  all  of  which  affirm  the  

principle  that  an  adverse  order  cannot  be  passed at  the  back  of  the  

affected party.

4

5. It is not necessary that principles of  ‘audi alterem partem’ rigorously  

followed in the domain of service law need to  be applied with the same  

degree of rigour in proceedings involving the removal and suspension of  

the members of the State Public Service Commission. This exceptional  

treatment  is  mandated  by  Article  317.  Furthermore,  the  issuance  of  

suspension orders is as per the ‘procedure established by law’ and not in  

derogation from the same.  

6.  It  will  be  useful  to  refer  to  a  judgment  of  this  court  in  Special   

Reference No. 1 of 1983, (1990) 4 SCC 262, wherein it was held that  

the position of a Chairman or a Member of a Public Service Commission  

cannot be equated with that of a public servant and hence the case law  

pertaining to the suspension and removal of  public employees has no  

relevance in the context of the proceedings under Article 317.  

7. The relevant observations were made at Para 9:  

“9. The case of a government servant is, subject to the  special provisions, governed by the law of master and   servant, but the position in the case of a member of the  commission is different. The latter holds a constitutional   post  and  is  government  by  the  special  provisions  dealing with different aspects of his office as envisaged   by the Articles 315 to 323 of Chapter II of Part XIV of   the constitution. In our view the decisions dealing with   service cases relied upon behalf of the respondent have  

5

no application to the present matter and the reference  will  have to answered on the merits  of the case with   reference  to  the  complaint  and  the  respondents’   deference”

8. Furthermore this court in Reference No. 1 of 2003, (2005) 6 SCC 789,  

has held that  no hearing or opportunity  of  showing cause against  the  

proposed reference under Article 317 (1) is necessary before making the  

actual reference. The relevant observations are as follows (Para. 2):

“2. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor   General  for  the  Union  of  India,  as  also  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  on  the  preliminary  objections.  We are  of  the  opinion  that  no  hearing  or  opportunity  of  showing  cause  against  the  proposed  reference  under  Article  317(1)  is  necessary  before  making the reference. The first objection is overruled.”

9.  In  Sayalee  Sanjeev  Joshi,  In  Re, (2007)  11  SCC  547,  which  

concerned the removal of a member of the  Maharashtra Public Service  

Commission under Article 317 on grounds of misbehaviour,  this court  

had observed (Para. 1):  

“1. …  Since a request was made to the President of   India to act in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution,   the placing of the respondent under suspension under  Article 317(2) of the Constitution was proper.”  

10. It is clear from the perusal of the above cases that the petitioners  

were not entitled to an opportunity to show cause or to be heard before  

the  point  of  time  that  the  orders  of  suspension  were  passed  by  the  

6

Hon'ble Governor of Haryana under Article 317(2) after the President had  

referred  the  matter  to  the  Supreme  Court.  The  rationale  behind  

empowering  the  Governor  of  a  State  to  issue  such  an  order  for  

suspension  even  before  the  reference  is  actually  decided  by  the  

Supreme  Court  is  to  maintain  the  public  trust  and  confidence  in  the  

impartial and honest working of the said Public Service Commission. It is  

a  prerogative  given  to  the  State  Executive,  but  the  members  so  

suspended are given the opportunity  to present  their  cases when  the  

actual reference is decided upon by the Supreme Court. It is open to the  

members so suspended to present their point of view at that stage. After  

all, it is only after the merits of the case have been examined that the  

Supreme Court arrives at an answer to the reference and communicates  

the same decision to the President for further action.  

11.  The  Public  Service  Commission  is  an  institution  of  the  utmost  

importance created by the Constitution of India under Article 315. For the  

efficient  functioning  of  a  democracy  it  is  imperative  that  the  Public  

Service  Commissions  are  manned  by  people  of  the  highest  skill  and  

irreproachable integrity, so that the selections to various public posts can  

be immunized from all sorts of extraneous factors like political pressure  

or personal favoritism and are made solely on considerations of merit.

7

12. In Special Reference No. 1 of 1997, (2000) 4 SCC 309, this Court  

discussed the role of the members of the Public Service Commissions  

and  made  the  following  observations  with  regard  to  their  duties  and  

qualifications (Para. 4):  

"4.Keeping  in  line  with  the  high  expectations  of  their   office  and  need  to  observe  absolute  integrity  and  impartiality in the exercise of their powers and duties, the   Chairman  and  members  of  the  Public  Service  Commission are required to be selected on the basis of   their  merit,  ability  and  suitability  and  they  in  turn  are   expected to be models  themselves in their  functioning.   The  character  and  conduct  of  the  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Commission,  like  Caesar's  wife,  must   therefore be above board. They occupy a unique place  and position and utmost objectivity in the performance of   their  duties and integrity  and detachment  are essential   requirements expected from the Chairman and members  of the Public Service Commissions."

13. At Para 31 of the same opinion, this Court further stated:  

“31.The  credibility  of  the  institution  of  Public  Service  Commission is founded upon faith of the common man  on its proper functioning. The faith would be eroded and  confidence destroyed if it appears that the Chairman or  the Members of the Commission act subjectively and not   objectively  or  that  their  actions  are  suspect.  Society   expects honesty, integrity and complete objectivity from  the  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  must  act  fairly,  without  any  pressure  or   influence from any quarter, unbiased and impartially, so  that  the  society  does  not  loose  confidence  in  the  Commission.  The  high  constitutional  trustees,  like  the  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Public  Service  Commission must for ever remain vigilant and conscious  of these necessary adjuncts.”

8

14.  It  is  very  clear  that  since  the  Public  Service  Commissions  are  a  

constitutional  creation,  the  principles  of  service  law that  are  ordinarily  

applicable in instances of dismissals of government employees cannot be  

extended  to  the  proceedings  for  the  removal  and  suspension  of  the  

members of the said Commissions. Hence, we are of the opinion that the  

en bloc suspension of  the  8  Members and Chairman of  the Haryana  

Public Service Commission by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana by an  

order dated 09.08.2008 under Article 317(2) of the Constitution and the  

impugned notification  dated 09.08.2008 are valid  and not  liable  to  be  

quashed.  

15. The Writ Petitions are dismissed.   

                                                                   ….……………………….…CJI                                                                     [ K.G. BALAKRISHNAN ]  

            ….....…………………………J.  

                                                                   [ P. SATHASIVAM ]   

                                                                    …………………….………….J.          [ J. M. PANCHAL ]  August 07, 2009 New Delhi.

9