http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 22  

PETITIONER: REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITU-TION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/08/1990

BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:  1990 SCC  (4) 262        JT 1990 (3)   453  1990 SCALE  (2)236

ACT:     Constitution of India, 1950/Punjab State Public  Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958:  Arti- cles 317 and 318--Member, Public Service Commission  Removal of--Inquiry into conduct--Presidential Reference to  Supreme Court--Whether  becomes infructuous on expiry of term  mean- while--General  law  of  master and  servant  applicable  to government servants  Applicability of--Conduct of Member  in slapping Chairman--Whether amounts to misbehaviour rendering him liable to removal from office.

HEADNOTE:     The  President of India made a reference  under  Article 317(1)  of  the Constitution to this Court for  inquiry  and report  on  the conduct of the respondent, a Member  of  the Punjab State Public Service Commission.     In a letter addressed to the Governor of the State, with a  copy  to the Chief Minister, the Chairman of  the  Punjab State   Public   Service  Commission  complained   that   on 24.11.1982, while she was proceeding to her office from  the Committee  Room, along with the respondent and  three  other members. after interviewing candidates for certain  appoint- ments, the respondent, without any provocation, gave a  full blooded  hard slap across her face, when she was  discussing with  him regarding his absence on previous days. The  other three  members, who were just behind her, also  addressed  a joint  letter to the Governor about the incident. Since  the Governor  was not available in the State, the  Chairman  and the three members reported the matter to the Chief Minister, and  handed  over  the letters to him.  The  Chief  Minister forwarded  the  complaint  to the Government  of  India  and directed the Chief Secretary to take necessary action in the matter.  The Chief Secretary recorded the statements of  the members. Thereafter, the respondent received a  charge-sheet from  the  Chief  Secretary asking for  his  reply.  Besides taking several objections, the respondent denied the version of  the Chairman and claimed that during the course  of  the discussions, when the Chairman lost her temper and was going to  attack  her with a raised hand, he caught  her  hand  to avoid  attack and insult. The other three members  generally supported the Chairman’s allegations. After considering  the reply of the respondent and the statements

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 22  

578 of the three other members, the President of India made  the Reference.     This Court directed notice to be served on all the  five members of the Commission and they ,filed their sworn state- ments.  Affidavits were also filed by several other  persons who  claimed  to have knowledge of the incident  or  of  its background.     Overruling  the objections of the respondent that  since the incident, if assumed to be true, may lead to his indict- ment  of having committed a criminal act or in any event  an act  which  may expose him to civil  action,  the  Reference should  not  have been made by the President  without  fully satisfying himself (by getting the matter investigated) that a  prima facie case was made out and that this Court  should not  make  an enquiry into  allegations  involving  disputed facts as that may prejudice a future action in the  ordinary civil  ’or criminal court, this Court directed the  District and Session Judge, Delhi to nominate an Additional  District and Session Judge for the purpose of recording evidence  and transmitting  the same to this Court. Accordingly, the  evi- dence  which  was  led before the  Additional  District  and Sessions Judge was forwarded to this Court.     It  was contended on behalf of the respondent  that  the Reference  must  be treated to have become  infructuous  and need  not  be answered because the respondent’s  tenure  had already expired and he could not be removed from his  office and  it was futile to examine the evidence recorded  in  the case in pursuance of the order of this Court and to record a finding  on the correctness or otherwise of the  allegations made  against  him, that the period of six  years  had  been rigidly fixed making it clear that the period should not  be extended and the member, on the expiration of his term would be  ineligible for reappointment and that the  principle  as applicable  to the Government servants in  the  disciplinary proceedings should be made applicable to the members of  the Public  Service Commission also. It was also contended  that the evidence of complainant and other witnesses relied  upon by  her  were not fully consistent and that their  case  had been  developing  from stage to stage  which  indicated  its unreliable nature, and that several important documents were not filed in the proceeding by the State and Public  Service Commission  in spite of repeated requests, which had  preju- diced the respondent. Answering the Reference, this Court, HELD: 1.1 The conduct of a Member of the Public Service 579 Commission  has been considered important enough to  be  di- rectly dealt with by the Constitution itself. The efficiency and  purity of administration are greatly dependent  on  the right choice of the candidates to be entrusted with official duty;  and  to  ensure that suitable persons,  in  whom  the public  may have full faith are selected, it was  considered necessary to have a body with members of integrity, sinceri- ty and practical wisdom capable of commanding the confidence of the people for examining the merits of the candidates and make  available to the appointing authorities their  conclu- sion.  Taking  into account the possibility of  their  being subject  to pressure, they were given special protection  by the  Constitution  under Article 317  providing  that  they- except in cases covered by Clause (3)---can be removed  from their office only by an order of the President on the ground of  misbehaviour  after an inquiry by the Supreme  Court  in this regard. The fact that the apex Court of the country was entrusted  with such a duty indicates the  great  importance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 22  

which  has been attached to the office of the Member of  the Commission.  Under clause (2) of Article 317,  authority  to suspend  the  Chairman  or Member of  the  State  Commission pending an inquiry by the Supreme Court has been vested with the Governor. Hence, the conduct of a Member of the  Commis- sion under scrutiny of this Court in a reference made by the President  cannot be ignored on account of the tenure  being over. [585B-E]     1.2  The  Regulations flamed under Article  318  by  the Governor do not and cannot deal with removal and  suspension of  a  Member of the Commission since they  are  exclusively covered by Article 317. The Constitution, while dealing with the  removal of a Member of the Commission does not  provide for extending the term of a Member pending enquiry into  his conduct. The issue, therefore, must be treated as a live one even after the expiry of a Member’s tenure. The President of India  has requested the Court to investigate into the  con- duct of a Member and this Court ought to convey its  conclu- sions  rather than refuse to answer the  question.  [583F-G; 586A-B]     1.3 The case of a government servant is, subject to  the special provisions, governed by the law of master and  serv- ant, but the position of Member of the Commission is differ- ent. The latter holds a constitutional post and is  governed by the special provisions dealing with different aspects  of his office as envisaged by Articles 315 to 323 of Chapter II of part XIV of the Constitution. The reference will have  to be answered on the merits of the case with reference to  the complaint and the respondent’s defence. [586D-E] 580     R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 P.C. 27; State  of Assam and Others v. Padma Ram Sarah, AIR  1965  SC 473;  Dinesh  Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam  and  Others, [1978]  1 SCR 607; B.J. Shefat v. State of Gujarat and  Oth- ers,  [1978]  3 SCR 553 and C.L. Verma v.  State  of  Madhya Pradesh and another, J.T. 1989 4 SC 182, distinguished.     2.1  There  is no dispute that some  incident  did  take place on 24.11.1982 in the Public Service Commission  build- ing.  The  respondent was absent earlier which led  to  some discussion between the complainant Chairman and the respond- ent.  According to the Chairman’s evidence, she  received  a hard  slap across her face, although she was talking to  the respondent  politely. Her statement that the respondent  had slapped her without any provocation and that she was talking to  him  politely  cannot be accepted. The  version  of  the respondent  with  respect  of the manner in  which  she  was asking  for his explanation may be correct. She was used  to her  arrogant  ways and authoritarian manner  while  talking even  with  her colleagues, and hence the statement  of  the respondent  that  she was assuming a bossy posture  and  was insisting on an on the spot oral explanation from him may be correct. [583F; 582D; 601D-E]     The  evidence on record does indicate that the  Chairman was  attempting  to exercise her power in  an  authoritarian manner and lost her patience even with her colleagues if she was not readily obeyed and on more than one occasion in  the past she got annoyed with the other Members and attempted to get  them  removed from the Commission. However,  the  other three  Members of the Commission have pledged their oath  in support  of the allegation that the respondent  had  slapped the Chairman. The circumstances in which the things proceed- ed also corroborated their version. Over and above all this, the statements made by the respondent himself go to  support to  a  great extent the complainant’s case of  physical  as- sault. [598F-G; 599F-G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 22  

   All  the three Members of the Commission  are  unanimous and  emphatic  in stating that the respondent did  slap  the Chairman  hard  on  her face. They also say  that  this  was without provocation, which means that there was no  physical provocation on the part of the Chairman. The three witnesses were cross-examined at great length and were subjected to  a very large number of searching questions. There is no  mate- rial  coming out of the same on the basis of which they  can be  discredited. Though it was not a  completely  unprovoked situation  in  which respondent had hit  the  Chairman,  his statement  that the provocation was not limited to a  verbal duel and extended to the Chairman raising her hand 581 as  if to assault him, justifying him to slap her cannot  be accepted as correct. The Chairman did not attack or  intimi- date  respondent with physical violence and  the  respondent losing his self-control at the arrogance of the Chairman  in her talk with him, slapped her. [601F-G; 603A-B; D]     2.2  Persons occupying high public offices should  main- tain irreproachable behaviour. A certain minimum standard of code  of conduct is expected of them. What may be  excusable for an uneducated young man cannot be tolerated if a  Member of  a  Public Service Commission is involved.  Besides,  the respondent and the Chairman were not thrashing out a person- al  matter  or  a private dispute. They  were  discussing  a question involving their office and this in  broad-day-light in the open corroder of the Commission’s building.  Whatever the provocation offered by the Chairman, the respondent  was not justified in losing his cool to the extent of  indulging in  physical  violence. That the violence should  have  been directed  against  a  lady makes his conduct  all  the  more reprehensible. The respondent miserably failed in  maintain- ing  the  standard of conduct expected of a  Member  of  the Commission  and thereby brought great disrepute to  his  of- fice.  Hence the respondent’s conduct amounted  to  misbeha- viour within the meaning of Article 317(1) of the  Coustitu- tion  and  it  rendered him liable to be  removed  from  his office  of the Member of the Punjab Public  Service  Commis- sion. [604G-H; 605A-B]     3.  The refusal to produce the documents prayed  for  by the  respondent  has  not prejudiced him since  he  was  not entitled to those documents.

JUDGMENT: ADVISORY JURISDICTION: Special Reference No. 1-of 1983. (Under Article 3 17(1) of the Constitution of India).     R.N. Mittal, Pradeep Gupta, Prakash Chandra, Mrs.  Rekha Dayal,  Mrs. Sarla Chandra and Girish Chandra for the  Peti- tioners.     Ashok Desai, Additional Solicitor General, G.L.  Sanghi, A.  Subba Rao, Ms. A subhashini, S.K. Mehta,  Aman  Vachher, Atul Nanda and C.M. Nayyar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SHARMA,  J. This is a reference under Article 317(1)  of the  Constitution  made by the President of  India  to  this Court  for inquiry and report on the complaint of Smt.  San- tosh Chowdhary, Chairman of 582 the  Punjab Public Service Commission alleging  misbehaviour on  the  part of Sri Gopal Krishna Saini, a  Member  of  the Commission.     2. According to the case of Smt. Chowdhary, a number  of candidates  for  certain appointments  were  interviewed  at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 22  

Patiala on 24.11. 1982 till about 1.15 p.m. Thereafter  Smt. Chowdhary  along with Sri Saini and the other three  Members of  the  Commission left the Committee  room  and  proceeded towards  the  complainant’s office when  a  very  unpleasant incident took place. Sri Saini had been absent on the previ- ous two days and Smt. Chowdhary, the Chairman, enquired from him the reason. She also asked him to inform her in  advance whenever in the future he had to remain absent. According to her  further case, Sri Saini did not take the advice in  the right  spirit  and suggested that the Chairman may  put  the same  in writing on which she wanted a clarification  as  to the  matter she was being asked to put in writing.  She  al- leges  that thereupon Sri Sain, without any  provocation  or any  further  conversation  gave a full  blooded  hard  slap across  her face which not only stunned her but left her  in great physical shock and pain. Other Members of the  Commis- sion  who  were just behind her were also  shocked  by  this conduct.  One of the Members led her to her office  and  the other  two Members also later followed but Sri Saini  disap- peared  from  the scene. It is said that she sent  her  com- plaint in the form of a confidential letter addressed to Dr. M. Chenna Reddy, the then Governor of Punjab, with a copy to Sri Darbara Singh, the then Chief Minister of Punjab.     3.  Before  proceeding further with  the  other  details leading to the present Reference it may be stated that  Smt. Chowdhary was appointed a Member of the Punjab Public  Serv- ice  Commission  in  February 1975 and as  the  Chairman  on 28.4.1980.  Sri Saini was appointed a Member on 30.5.  1980. After  the  Gensral Elections in Punjab  Sri  Darbara  Singh became the Chief Minister 0f the State in early June, 1980.     4. The GovernOr was not available in Punjab and,  there- fore,  it  is said that the complaint was forwarded  to  the Government of India by the Chief Minister on 25.11.1982. The alleged incident did not get any publicity for sometime  and a  news  item appeared in one of the daily  papers  for  the first  time on 11.12.1982. Sir Saini thereafter  received  a charge-sheet  dated  15.12.1982  from  the  Chief  Secretary asking  for  his  reply. Besides  taking  several  technical objections,  Sri Saini denied the, story of Smt.  Chowdhary. The other three Members of the Commission, namely, Sri  H.S. Deol, Sri M.S. Brar and Sri W.G. Lall, gener- 583 ally  supported  the complainant’s allegation.  The  present Reference was made by the President of India after consider- ing  the reply of Sri saini and the statements of Sri  Deol, Sri Brar and Sri Lall.     5.  After the receipt of the Reference, this  Court  di- rected  notice tO be served on all the five Members  of  the Commission and they filed their sworn statements. Affidavits were also filed by several other persons who claimed to have knowledge of the incident or of its alleged background.  The Attorney  General  for  India and the  Advocate  General  of Punjab  also appeared to assist the Court. It was  contended on  behalf of Sri Saini that since the alleged  incident  if assumed  to  be true, may lead to his indictment  of  having committed  a criminal act or in any event an act  which  may expose  him to civil action, the reference should  not  have been made by the President without fully satisfying  himself (by getting the matter investigated) that a prima facie case was made out. It was argued that this Court should not  make an inquiry into allegations involving disputed facts as that may  prejudice  a  future action in the  ordinary  civil  or criminal  court. After considering the questions  raised  by Sri  Saini at some length, this Court by its judgment  dated 17.8.1983 overruled the objections and directed the District

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 22  

and Sessions Judge, Delhi to nominate an Additional District and Sessions Judge for the purpose of recording evidence and transmitting  the same to this Court.  Accordingly  evidence which  was led before the Additional District  and  Sessions Judge  has been forwarded to this Court. The case,  however, was  not promptly listed for final disposal under the  wrong impression that it could be disposed of only by a  Constitu- tion Bench which was not available on account of more urgent cases.     6.  Before the Additional District Judge a large  number of witnesses were examined at considerable length. A  number of  documents and affidavits also form part of the  records. There  does not appear to be any dispute that some  incident did  take place on 24.11. 1982 soon after 1,00 p.m.  in  the Public Service Commission building at Patiala. Sri Saini was absent  earlier  which led to some  discussion  between  the complainant  Chairman  and  the respondent  Sri  Saini.  The parties however differ as to what actually happened at  that stage.  According  to the case of the complainant,  she  has reiterated  her  earlier version as disclosed  in  the  com- plaint.  Mr. R.N. Mittal, the learned counsel appearing  for Shri  Saini, has however attempted to suggest that her  evi- dence and the evidence of other witnesses relied upon by her are  not  fully  ’consistent and that their  case  has  been developing  from  stage to stage indicating  its  unreliable nature. A simi 584 lar  comment  is made on behalf of the  complainant  on  the evidence  led  by Sri Saini. We will have to deal  with  the evidence at some length.     7.  Sri. R.N. Mittal also contended that several  impor- tant documents were not filed in the proceeding by State  of Punjab and the Public Service Commission inspite of repeated requests which has prejudiced Sri Saini. An application  was moved before this Court for a direction to produce a  number of documents which was registered as C.MP. No. 37191 of 1983 and  was disposed of by the order dated 9.12. 1983 at  pages 1023-1024 of Vol. VI of the paper book). While dealing  with some  of the documents it was observed that  the  petitioner (Sri Saini would be at liberty to contend during the hearing of  the  Reference case that he has been prejudiced  in  his defence  by  reason of the fact that he was not  allowed  to inspect  them and if this Court accepts that  contention  it may  become  necessary to allow the  petitioner  to  inspect those documents and to recall certain witnesses for  further examination.  When  the  case was taken up  before  us,  Sri Mittal  reiterated the stand of Sri Saini and explained  the nature  of the documents sought to be produced  for  inspec- tion. We examined the matter closely at considerable  length and we do no agree with Sri R.N. Mittal that the  petitioner (Sri  Saini) was entitled to inspect the documents  referred to above and the refusal in this regard has prejudiced him.     8.  Sri  R.N. Mittal next contended that  the  reference must  be treated to have become infructuous and need not  be answered.  As  provided in Article 3 16(2),  the  tenure  of office  of  a Member of a Public Service Commission  is  six years  (subject  to reduction of the period in case  of  the Member reaching the age of superannuation earlier, which  is not  the case here). The term of office of Sri Saini was  to expire  in May, 1986. The contention of Sri Mittal  is  that since  his tenure expired in 1986, Sri Saini cannot  now  be removed  from  his office and it is,  therefore,  futile  to examine  the evidence recorded in the case in  pursuance  of the earlier order of this Court, and to record a finding  on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 22  

him.  Referring  to the provisions of Article  316,  dealing with  the  appointment and term of office  of  Members,  the learned  counsel emphasised the fact that the period of  six years has been rigidly fixed making it clear that the period cannot  be extended and the Member on the expiration of  his term  would be ineligible for re-appointment.  Reliance  was placed  on several decisions dealing with disciplinary  pro- ceedings against the government servants, and it was  argued that  the same principle should be applicable to Members  of the  Public Service Commissions. Reference was made  to  the decisions in R.T. Rangachari 585 v. Secretary of State, AIR-1937 P.C. 27; State of Assam  and Others  v. Padma Ram Borah, AIR 1965 SC 473; Dinesh  Chandra Sangrna v. State of Assam and Others, [1978] 1 SCR 607; B.J. Shefat v. State of Gujarat and Others, [1978] 3 SCR 553  and C.L. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, J.T. 1989 4 SC 182. An examination of these decisions would show  that the  cases depended on the interpretation and effect of  the relevant service rules dealing with the conditions of  serv- ice including provisions in regard to retirement and compul- sory  retirement. So far the present case is concerned,  the conduct of a Member of the Public Service Commission’ is  in question  which has been considered important enough  to  be directly  dealt with by the Constitution itself.  The  effi- ciency and purity of administration are greatly dependent on the  right  choice of the candidates to  be  entrusted  with official duty; and to ensure that suitable persons, in  whom the public may have full faith are selected, it was  consid- ered  necessary  to have a body with members  of  integrity, sincerity,  and practical wisdom capable of  commanding  the confidence  of  the people for examining the merits  of  the candidates and make available to the appointing  authorities their  conclusion.  Taking into account the  possibility  of their  being  subject to pressure, they were  given  special protection by the Constitution under Article 3 17  providing that  they--except  in cases covered by Clause  (3)--can  be removed from their office only by an order of the  President on  the  ground  of misbehaviour’ after an  inquiry  by  the Supreme  Court in this regard. The fact that the apex  Court of the country was entrusted with such a duty indicates  the great  importance which has been attached to the  office  of the Member of the Commission. Under clause (2) of Article  3 17,  authority  to  suspend the Chairman or  Member  of  the Commission pending an inquiry by the Supreme Court has  been vested with the Governor in the case of a State  Commission. If the position is examined in this background it is  diffi- cult to suggest that the conduct of a member of the  Commis- sion under scrutiny of this Court in a reference made by the President  can  be ignored on account of  the  tenure  being over.  The  Regulations  framed under Article 3  18  by  the Governor do not and cannot deal with removal and  suspension of  a  Member of the Commission since they  are  exclusively covered  by Article 3 17. Part V of the Punjab State  Public Service  Commission  (Conditions  of  Service)  Regulations, 1958,  provides for the payment of pension with the  proviso that a Member who has been removed from office shall not  be entitled to the same, So far as the government servants  are concerned,  there  are specific set of. rules in  regard  to pension,  inter alia dealing with cases in which  government servants  are found guilty of serious charges  committed  on the eve of their retirement. The rules governing many  serv- ices also 586 provide  for extending the period of service of the  govern-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 22  

ment servant with a view to complete a pending  disciplinary proceeding.  In the case of a Member of the Commission,  the Constitution,  while dealing with the removal of  a  Member, does  not provide for such contingencies. The issue,  there- fore, must be treated as a live one even after the expiry of a Member’s tenure. The President of India has requested this Court  to investigate into the conduct of a Member and  this Court ought to convey its conclusions rather than refuse  to answer  the  question. During the hearing of  the  case,  we enquired from Sri Mittal, the learned counsel for Sri Saini, whether,  in the event of this proceeding being  dropped  as suggested  on his behalf, he is ready to give up  his  claim for  salary for the period he was under suspension  and  for pension,  and Sri Mittal after taking instructions from  Sri Saini,  who was present in Court throughout  the  arguments, stated  that the respondent would not give up his claim  and would demand arrears of his salary and pension.     9.  The case of a government servant is, subject to  the special provisions, governed by the law of master and  serv- ant, but the position in the case of a Member of the Commis- sion  is different. The latter holds a  constitutional  post and  is  governed  by the special  provisions  dealing  with different  aspects of his office as envisaged by Articles  3 15 to 323 of Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution.  In our  view  the decisions dealing with service  cases  relied upon on behalf of the respondent have no application to  the present matter and the reference will have to be answered on the  merits of the case with reference to the complaint  and the respondent’s defence.     10.  The  evidence which has been led in  this  case  is voluminous.  The details dealing with the admission of  evi- dence  had been considered by this Court earlier  and  after considering  the  relevant  Constitutional  provisions,  the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure and the Supreme  Court Rules,  an  order in this regard was  passed  on  17.8.1983. There  is  no  grievance by the parties before  us  on  this aspect, excepting the contention on behalf of Sri Saini that he  has  been prejudiced in his defence on account  of  non- availability of a number of documents, with which we do  not agree.     11. We have gone through the entire evidence in the case and  have heard elaborate arguments by the  learned  counsel representing the parties. The questions which have now to be answered are: (i) Whether Sri Saini had slapped Smt. Chowdhary and, if so, in what circumstances? 587 (ii) Whether Sri Saini acted in a manner which rendered  him liable to be removed from his office of Member of the Punjab Public Service Commission?     12.  The allegation of Smt. Chowdhary which she made  in her letter dated 24.11. 1982 has been mentioned earlier. The letter  was  drafted by her in her office  room  immediately after  the incident. Immediately thereafter the other  three Members,  Sri  Deol, Sri Brar and Sri Lall drafted  a  joint letter addressed to the Governor, which reads as follows:           "With  great regret we saw a  dastardly  happening today in the Commission premises. When we were walking  down the  corridor from the Committee Room after the days  inter- views with the candidates, Mr. G.K. Saini was walking  ahead with Mrs. Santosh ChoWdhary, the Chairman. She was apparent- ly inquiring from him about his absence from the  interviews on  the previous two days. Just outside the  Chairman’s  of- fice,  Mr. Saini asked the Chairman to give him in  writing. Mr.  Saini without any provocation slapped her right  across

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 22  

the face.           This dastardly incident has left us all completely stunned  and shocked. Apart from anything else,  this  tran- scends  all civilised behaviour not only to the Chairman  of the  Commission but also to a lady who deserves the  highest courtesy.          We would like to place on record our great sense of shock at this uncivilised and criminal behaviour. We  humbly submit that we would not like to sit on the Commission  with Mr.  G.K. Saini. We strongly urge that action may kindly  be taken   to  have  him  removed  from  such  a  high   office forthwith." It  was decided by all four of them, that is,  the  Chairman and  the three Members, to report the matter  personally  to the Governor and with that view they all proceeded to Chand- igarh.  The Governor was, however, not available before  the 1st  of December, 1982, and the matter was reported  to  the Chief Minister Sri Darbara Singh and the letters were handed over  to him. The Chief Minister called Sri  K.D.  Vasudeva, Chief Secretary, and directed him to take necessary  action. Sri Deol, Sri Brar and Sri Lall also made statements  before the Chief 588 Secretary  on solemn affirmation on 20.12. 1982  which  were recorded  by the Chief Secretary and signed by  the  Members respectively.  According to the statements before the  Chief Secretary,  Sri  Deol, and Sri Lall suggested to  Sri  Saini that  he should immediately apologise to Smt. Chowdhary  but he  refused to do so: In the meantime Sri  Brar  accompanied Smt.  Chowdhary  into her room where the other  two  Members also  joined  them, after leaving behind Sri  Saini  in  his room.  ;if Deol further stated that when he asked Sri  Saini as  to why did he behave in the rude and uncultured  manner, he replied in Punjabi that ’this is the way we do it".  They all  insisted that without any provocation from Smt.  Chowd- hary  Sri  Saini had slapped her, In respect to  the  better dated  15.12.1982  of the Chief Secretary, Sri  Saini,  vide letter  dated 24.12.1982, besides taking preliminary  objec- tion to the said letter which was in substance a show  cause notice, placed his version of the incident in the  following words:          "On  24.11.1982, when we came out of the  Committee Room, she took me ahead of all other Members since she  said that  she wanted to talk to me alone, so that other  members could pot hear. I followed her. She demanded explanation  as to why | had not attended the meetings on the preceding  two days. I told her that 1 had informed her in advance. But she insisted that the application should have been submitted and got sanctioned from her in advance. I told her that she  was proceeding  against the decision of the Public Service  Com- mission  taken around July 1981 by all the members.  I  told her  to give in writing, so that I could seek a  fresh  man- date. I told her that the Chairman alone could not  overrule the decision of all the members. She felt I was  challenging her  seniority. She lost temper and was going to  attack  me with  a raised hand, when I caught her hand to avoid  attack and insult. It is absolutely incorrect that I gave any  slap or in any other manner attacked her.          The  other  members,  who were  at  some  distance, reached  later. Some candidates, who had come for  interview that  day  and  some office staff had  reached  earlier  and separated us.           Sarvshri H.S. Deol and W.G. Lall took me aside and asked me to go to the Chairman, who, they said was a lady. I told them that I have been wronged but they should not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 22  

589 add insult to injury by making me to go to the Chairman." He  told  the Chief Secretary that he came from  a  renowned family  of  lawyers and that his eider brother  had  held  a judicial  post  for three decades and had retired  from  the post of District and Sessions judge. He was himself a lawyer of  18  years standing and was of a cool  temperament  never losing his temper which would be supported by the members of the  public.  He further said that his relations  with  Smt. Chowdhary, who was his neighbour, were most cordial, and the two  families were on visiting terms. When his son  was  in- volved in a road accident Smt. Chowdhary was very sympathet- ic  and  helpful to him and the two had been  going  to  the office  on  many  occasions in the same  car.  However,  the unfortunate incident happened mainly due to the  temperament of the Chairman. She suffers from a complex that she is  the ’boss’  and  nobody could express an  honest  difference  of opinion  even on trifling matters. In the past she had  been behaving in a wholly unreasonable manner with the Members of the Commission including one Sri Mitha, retired earlier, and Sri  Deol, the sitting Member. All this can be  proved  from the  records  available at the Governor’s  Secretariat.  Ex- plaining  as to why the other Members were  supporting  Smt. Chowdhary, the respondent stated that they became hostile to him  as  he had refused to apologise to the  lady.  He  also pointed out that although they had indicated in their earli- er  letters  that they did not like sitting with him,  as  a matter of fact, they continued holding the interviews of the candidates along with the respondent.     13.  After  service of notice issued by this  Court  all these  five persons as also Sri Darbara Singh, Chief  Minis- ter, and the Chief Secretary and a number of other.  persons who claimed to have information of the incident filed  their affidavits before this Court. Sri Saini filed a long affida- vit along with annexures which is included at pages 19 to 90 in Vol. I of the paper book. He also filed separate  counter affidavits explaining his stand with reference to the state- ments  made  by the other persons so far they  went  against him. The counter affidavit of Smt. Chowdhary in reply to Sri Saini’s affidavit is also a detailed one and is included  at pages  1-34  of  Vol. II of the paper  book.  Other  further affidavits filed by many persons described as counter  affi- davits  or rejoinder affidavits or affidavits in reply  were filed before this Court in 1983.     14.  Apart from denying the version of the  incident  as presented  in the complaint petition and the  affidavits  of the Chairman, Sri Saini has attempted to give the background in which the present accusation 590 has been made against him. According to his case, there were two  groups in the ruling Congress Party in Punjab, one  led by  Giani  Zail  Singh, who later became  the  President  of India,  and  the other of Sri Darbara Singh. Sri  Saini  was appointed  a  Member  of the Public  Service  Commission  on 30.5.1980, that is, just a day before the General  Elections for  the  State, in which Sri Darbara Singh emerged  as  the leader.  He took charge of the office of Chief  Minister  on 6.6. 1980 and was disappointed to find that the constitution of  the Commission was complete with the Chairman  and  five Members.  In August, 1982 Sri D.S. Sodhi one of the  Members retired and Sri Darbara Singh wanted to have his nominee  in his place. The Governor, Sri Chenna Reddy, however, declined to  fill up the 6th post and Sri Darbara Singh  was,  there- fore,  piqued at the situation. He became determined to  get his nominee appointed even if it required some manoeuvre for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 22  

creating the vacancy. In the meantime some  misunderstanding developed  between  Sri Darbara Singh and the  wife  of  Sri Saini, Smt. Krishna Chaudhary, who is a social worker.  Smt. Kirshna  had  led a deputation of the villagers  of  certain locality to the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi,  and the Chief Minister felt that this was a move against him and he threatened her publicly. Both the Chief Minister and Smt. Krishna  have  been examined as witnesses in this  case  and have been cross-examined at considerable length. Mr. Mittal, the learned counsel for the respondent, developed the theory of a conspiracy in his argument on the basis of the evidence led  in the case and argued that Sri Darbara  Singh  hatched out  the conspiracy to get the respondent removed  from  his office,  to which Smt. Chowdhary became a  colluding  party. When a minor incident took place on 24.11. 1982 she exploit- ed the situation to her advantage with a view to please  the Chief Minister, and the Members being impressed by the drama enacted  by  her, fell for her story. It was argued  by  the learnedcounsel that the original complaint petition of  Smt. Chowdhary  which was drawn up like an F.I.R. was not  trace- able on the records of the Governor’s Secretariat and  could not be filed as evidence. Referring to its zerox copy it was pointed  that the same did not bear any official  number  of the  office of the Public Service Commission; and,  the  en- dorsements  made thereon were also characterised  as  suspi- cious.  Governor was to return to Punjab by the end  of  the month,  but  waiting  for a single day  the  Chief  Minister decided  to take immediate hasty step on the  complaint  and directed  the  Chief Secretary accordingly. Relying  on  the evidence which indicates that Smt. Chowdhary along with  the other three Members and a stenographer, travelling with  his typewriter  in  another car, all proceeded from  Patiala  to Chandigarh, it was urged that if the complaint petition and 591 the  joint  petition of the three Members had  already  been drafted at Patiala, where was the necessity of two car loads of people along with a typewriter to proceed to  Chandigarh. The argument is that Smt. Chowdhary took care of taking  the three  Members to meet the Chief Minister and get  committed to  their  story. thus closing their way to  return  to  the truth.  The evidence of several other witnesses examined  in support  of the defence of Sri Saini’s version of the  inci- dent was also relied upon.     15.  The learned counsel for the respondent  placed  the subsequent statements of the three Members of the Commission and  contended that they show a clear departure  from  their original stand. Similar criticism has been made against  the evidence  of Smt. Chowdhary also. In our view, there  is  no vital difference in their statements made from time to  time which  may  render their evidence doubtful.  But  before  we proceed to examine the evidence in detail on this aspect, we would briefly indicate the nature of the other evidence  led in the case.     16. A number of affidavits were attached to main affida- vit  of Sri Saini filed in this case on 1.3.1983.  In  these affidavits  sworn  on 28.2. 1983 and 1.3.1983, some  of  the deponents  claimed to be eyewitnesses of the  incident,  and they  denied  the story of slapping of the Chairman  by  the respondent.  They are Ujagar Singh, Avtar Singh, Labh  Singh and  Hakam  Singh.  According to their version  it  was  the Chairman  who was shouting at the respondent and had  raised her  hand in air. Hakam Singh subsequently did  not  support his  earlier  statement  and according to the  case  of  the respondent supported by a second affidavit of Ujagar  Singh, he had been won over through the police. The respondent  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 22  

also  attached  an affidavit of his wife  stating  that  she being  a social worker had met the Prime Minister  to  press the  grievance of certain villagers which enraged the  Chief Minister.  The  Chief Minister subsequently  threatened  her with  a warning that she would be set right. This story  has been again supported by the affidavits of Labh Singh, Baksh- ish Singh, Niranjan Singh, Mahendra Singh and Swaran  Singh. Two  advocates  Santokh Singh Gil and Hari Mohan  Singh  Pal stated on affidavits that Sri Saini came from a  respectable family  and was known for his cool temper and good  manners. Some  of the deponents later disowned the statements in  the affidavits; and another affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent stating that this was the result of an attempt by the other side to win over the witnesses through the police. This allegation has been denied by the police witnesses M.S. Bhuller and Narender Pal Singh. 592     17.  So far the case of the respondent about the  actual incident is concerned, he has narrated his version in sever- al affidavits filed in this proceeding. With respect to what actually  happened  soon after 1.00 p.m. on  24.11.1982,  he admits  that  there was some unpleasant  incident,  but  the story given out by Chairman and the other Members is  incor- rect.  It  is claimed that it was a minor affair  which  was later  blown out of proportion with a view to harm  him  and get  the post occupied by him vacated. Mr. Mittal  has  con- tended  that  if it were not so, the newspapers  would  have reported  the  story immediately after 24.11.1982,  but  the incident  was not reported in any paper before 11.12,.  1982 when the daily newspaper "Indian Express" for the first time stated  that  it was a case of heated exchange  between  the Chairman and the respondent outside the Committee Room.  The report has been fully quoted in the respodent’s reply  which further  stated that some Members and employees of the  Com- mission were witness to the angry exchange and although  the Chairman  refused  to talk on the issue,  her  husband  when contacted, described the incident as a minor one. The state- ments  of the respondent as to what exactly happened may  be at this stage considered. According to his reply sent to the Chief Secretary, the Chairman was expressing her displeasure on  his absence on the previous two days and  was  insisting that an application should have been submitted and  sanction obtained from her in advance. This part of the  respondent’s statement  has  been quoted in paragraph 12 above.  The  re- spondent reminded her of the decision taken by tile  Commis- sion  in July 1981 to the contrary and told her that if  she wanted  to overrule the decision she should say so in  writ- ing.  This  reply agitated her and she lost temper  and  was going  to attack him with a raised hand which he  caught  to avoid the attack. Besides this, he did not do anything else. The  other  Members who were a little  behind,  reached  the place  where this incident happened, later. Some  candidates who  had come for interview and some members of  the  office staff  intervened  and  separated them.  In  his  subsequent affidavit  filed  before this Court the  respondent  however said in paragraph 1 that the reference had been made "on  an allegation  against the deponent which as a fact  never  oc- curred and what was only a heated exchange of words  between the deponent and the Chairman of the Public Service  Commis- sion,  Punjab  on 24.11. 1982 at about 1.15  p.m.  has  been blown out of proportion by the interested parties for secur- ing  their  personal ends." The respondent then  quoted  the report  which  appeared in the "Indian  Express"  mentioning only the heated exchange- Towards the end of paragraph 3  of his affidavit he further argued that, "if it was actually  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 22  

case of physical assault like "slapping" a dignitary like  a Chairman of an august body i.e. the Commission, the reporter could not have ignored 593 that  fact just to report it as a "minor" incident and  only as "heated exchange". This is not consistent with either his earlier statement or with the detailed account mentioned  in the affidavit where he once more stated that he "noticed one hand of the Chairman going high up in the air and the  depo- nent,  with  the state of mind that he was in at  that  time after  a humiliating interrogation by the Chairman,  thought that the raised hand of the Chairman might not come upon the deponent as a blow and as such the deponent just intercepted that raised hand of the Chairman by raising his own hand and bringing her raised hand down by that effort." The  respond- ent, however, is not emphatic in claiming that the  Chairman had  really intended any physical harm or insult to  him  by her raised hand. The following statement in his affidavit is relevant in this connection: "If  the  Chairman  really intended to give a  blow  to  the deponent  by  her raised hand then the  deponent  was  fully justified  to make an attempt at warding off  that  intended blow  to save himself from further humiliation publicly  and if  the raised hand of the Chairman was not intended  for  a blow at me but was only an involuntary mannerism on her part in  that moment of her great excitement induced by  her  own self  by a mistaken belief in her own importance  being  de- flated by a supposed subordinate in authority then also  the deponent’s  action  was justified by the  attending  circum- stances  when nothing but an ill motive on the part  of  the Chairman  could be conjectured and concluded in that  moment of confusion, on the part of the deponent".     18.  The main witnesses of the unfortunate incident  are the Chairman, the respondent and the remaining three Members of the Commission, and they are consistent about a  physical impact  between the.Chairman and the respondent.  The  other witnesses  relied  upon  by the respondent  who  denied  any physical contact between them cannot be believed, and we  do not  propose to discuss their evidence at length. Dr.  Vinod Gupta  and Dr. Satyadev Saini asserted in  their  affidavits that the Chairman was shouting at the respondent and  there- after went to her room. Dr. Saini described the tone of  the Chairman  as insulting. He said that after the  intervention of  some persons, she went to her room. Even the  respondent does  not simplify the entire happening as the  two  doctors have  attempted  to  do. They appear  to  have  been  biased against  the  Chairman and were making  false  statement  to protect  the respondent. Dr. Gupta in his  cross-examination insisted that although he was getting only a stipend for the house-job and was 594 anxious  to  get a service, he and his colleague  Dr.  Saini decided to travel to Delhi, engage a lawyer and pay for  the affidavits  that  were filed. The claim is  that  they  were doing  it as members of the public in response to  call  for justice,  but their statements in  cross-examination  expose their  hostile  attitude towards the Chairman-  We  have  no hesitation  in rejecting their evidence as  unreliable.  The affidavits of the other persons and their evidence do not do any credit to them and we will close this chapter by reject- ing  their statements as undependable. The main  issue  with respect  to the actual incident must, therefore, be  decided on a consideration of the affidavits of the respondent,  and the  affidavits and evidence of the Chairman anal the  other three Members of the Commission in their  cross-examination-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 22  

So  far  the respondent is concerned, he  first  decided  to examine  himself as a witness but later declined to  do  so. After  the  case was closed by the Additional  District  and Sessions Judge an application was made on his behalf stating that  he had changed his mind and that he was on his way  to the  Court for being examined as a witness, but somehow  his arrival  was delayed. The Additional District  and  Sessions Judge did not reopen the matter and we think rightly. We  do not  believe  that  the respondent had  really  intended  to appear  as  a witness to be cross-examined and  the  belated application  was filed merely by way of an excuse.  the  re- spondent was within his rights not to appear in the proceed- ing  as a witness, specially because on the allegation  made against  him  he  was entitled to consider  himself  in  the position  of  an accused in a criminal case. But  he  should have  boldly taken this stand in the proceeding  and  should not  have vacillated from one stand to another and from  one excuse to another from time to time. As a respectable member of the Bar and as a Member of the Public Service  Commission one would expect from him a straight forward approach and we do not appreciate his attempt to invent an alibi.     19. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent  that the issue must be examined in the background of the  circum- stances indicating a deep conspiracy to oust the  respondent from the Commission hatched out at the instance of the Chief Minister by the Chairman and others. Reliance was placed  on the  affidavit of his wife Smt. Krishna Chaudhary  (who  has been referred to during the hearing as Smt. Krishna so as to avoid  the  confusion between her name and the name  of  the Chairman)  which was filed along with the main affidavit  of the respondent. She is a social worker and has been  render- ing  public  service in various capacities detailed  in  her affidavit.  She has stated about her visit to the  residence of the Chief Minister, Sri Darbara Singh, in the company  of her husband and the Chairman. She says that 595 on  seeing her and her husband the Chief Minister  lost  his cool  and declared that the Public Service Commission  would be dissolved. From the manner in which the attack proceeded, it was clear to her that the "outburst was directed  against her  husband",  the present respondent. At the  end  of  the meeting  the  Chief Minister asked the respondent  to  align with  the  Chairman  and follow her  instructions.  She  has described another incident when she had to face the wrath of the  Chief Minister earlier. She was espousing the cause  of certain villagers and in that connection led a delegation to the  Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi. The  Prime  Minister after giving n patient hearing to her, sent a telex  massage to the Chief Minister instructing him to do the needful, and accordingly Sri Darbara Singh paid a visit to the village in question in March 1981. There he made a pointed inquiry from the  villagers as to who had led and prompted them to go  to the  Prime  Minister  instead of approaching  him.  When  he learnt  that it was Smt. Krishna who had gone to  the  Prime Minister with their case, the Chief Minister shouted at  her expressing  his  deep displeasure. She appeared  before  the Additional  District and Sessions judge  for  cross-examina- tion.  Her  deposition in the case attempted to  evade  many questions  which  she thought would show her in  bad  light. Asked  about her unsuccessful attempt to get a party  ticket for  the  election to the State Assembly, she  first  stated that she had never made an application, but later she had to correct  it  by accepting that she had asked for  the  party ticket  from Anandpur Saheb Constituency which was  refused. From the evidence on the record it is clear that members  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 22  

both  the families of the respondent and his  wife’s  father have  been  respectable  Congressmen of  Punjab,  and  their presence in the public life of the State cannot be  ignored. But when Smt. Krishna was asked about various details of her association in the political field she did not come out with straight  forward answers. She had been arrested and put  in custody for about 2 months during the Janata Party regime in the  country in 1977-1979 along with Sri Darbara  Singh  and several  other  Congress workers. With a view to  evade  the questions which were being put to her about her company  and the manner in which she conducted herself during that  peri- od,  she  first  said that she did not  recollect  when  she underwent  the imprisonment and that the other persons  men- tioned by the cross-examining lawyer "might have been"  also there. Another line which was pursued in her  cross-examina- tion  was  about her and her husband’s  financial  position. About receiving donations for social work, she claimed  that she stopped collecting donations after her husband became  a Member  of the Public Service Commission. Several  questions were  asked  about the income of her husband  from  his  law practice as well as that derived from his ancestral  proper- ties but she evaded to give the necessary 596 information.  She said that she did not have any idea as  to the extent of the family properties and the income available therefrom. Nor could she say whether her husband was  paying income-tax  or not before he became a Member of the  Commis- sion.  However,  pursued further she had to admit  that  the income from the properties could not be substantial. We  are not  here concerned with the actual properties belonging  to the  respondent or his income, but the manner in which  Smt. Krishna  answered  the questions put to her  in  her  cross- examination  becomes relevant as it shows that she  did  not have  unflinching respect for truth and that she is  capable of making a statement which may suit her. Reliance has  also been  placed on the affidavits of several other  persons  in support of her story about the threat publicly given to  her by  the  Chief Minister. For the reasons  briefly  indicated below they also cannot be believed.     20. One of the affidavits supporting the version of Smt. Krishna was by Labh Singh filed in this Court along with the counter  affidavit of the respondent. The affidavit runs  in five paragraphs and the deponent mentioned several dates  in relation  to  the  incident on five occasions,  but  in  his cross-examination he conceded that he was totally illiterate except for putting his signature in Urdu, and that he had no idea about the English calendar month either, which has been used in his affidavit. In his affidavit he has described the present case correctly as a reference under Article 3  17(1) of the Constitution. But in his cross-examination he  admit- ted  his complete ignorance about the Constitution  as  also about  the nature of the present proceeding. When a  pointed question  was  asked in this regard, he said  that  what  he meant  to say in the counter affidavit was that Sri  Darbara Singh  was a liar. He had also to say that he did  not  know what  was  typed in the affidavit.  His  statements  clearly indicate  that he was under the influence of the  respondent and  his  wife  and was lending his name  to  the  affidavit without  having any idea of its contents. He does  not  have any  respect  for truth as indicated  by  his  contradictory statements  made in regard to his alleged relationship  with the respondent and about the alleged incidents in which  Sri Darbara Singh is said to have given an open public threat to Smt. Krishna. Identical affidavits sworn by Bakshish  Singh, Mahinder  Singh  and Sarwan Singh were  also  filed.  Sarwan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 22  

Singh was also cross-examined at considerable length and his statements  are  equally undependable. He was  Sarpanch  for sometime  and was attached to the family of  the  respondent for  decades. He admitted his association with Smt.  Krishna for  25-30  years. Another person by the  name  of  Niranjan Singh  claimed to have been a witness of the threat  by  Sri Darbara Singh. The witness was cross-examined at 597 length. He has not faired better than the others. We are not impressed  by  the affidavits of the others, and we  do  not consider it necessary to deal with their evidence  individu- ally except mentioning that there has been some  controversy as to whether there was an attempt on the part of the Chair- man  through the State Police authorities to  influence  the witnesses. Affidavits and counter affidavits have been filed by  the parties in support of their respective stands.  None of  these affidavits inspires confidence. Sri Darbara  Singh has  filed  his affidavit denying all the  allegations  made against  him about his annoyance with Smt. Krishna  and  the alleged  threat to her; or his prejudice to  the  respondent and complicity in any conspiracy. He stated that Smt. Krish- na never saw him nor did he receive any direction or message from  the Prime Minister in regard to any grievance  of  the villagers and there was no question of his having threatened Smt.  Krishna. He appeared as a witness and was  cross-exam- ined at length. His deposition is at pages 8 13-879 of  Vol. V  of  the  paper book, portion of which  was  read  by  the learned counsel for the parties during the hearing. A  large number  of questions in regard to the internal  politics  of the  Congress Party in Punjab were put to him. It  was  sug- gested  that he and Giani Zial Singh were heading two  rival factions  of the Congress Party. The Chief  Minister  evaded such  questions  by saying that there is a  single  Congress Party  known as Congress(I). We do not consider  his  reluc- tance to discuss the internal matter of the Party as unnatu- ral  and  we cannot draw any inference against him  on  that account. There is nothing in his deposition indicating  that his  denial of the allegations made against him by  the  re- spondent and his wife is not worthy of acceptance. The story of his outburst against the respondent in presence of  other persons and against Smt. Krishna in the presence of a  large number of villagers is neither natural nor supported by  the circumstances; and the evidence led is wholly  undependable. For this conclusion we are not depending on the evidence  of the Chairman with respect to the alleged interview when  Sri Darbara  Singh is said to have expressed his displeasure  to Sri Saini.     21. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent  that the complaint petition of the Chairman and the joint  letter of the other three members of the Commission were not draft- ed  at Patiala and came into existence later  at  Chandigarh after  a deliberation by all the collaborators of  the  con- spiracy. As has been mentioned earlier, the argument is that while the Governor was away on leave, the matter should have awaited  his return and should not have been rushed  through by  sending  the  complaint to the President  of  India  for immediate  action. It has also been said that the issue  was not placed 598 even before the Cabinet before taking these steps and it was only  belatedly that a post facto resolution in this  regard was  got  passed by the Cabinet. We have given  our  anxious consideration  to all these aspects and we do not  find  any merit  in  the argument of the learned counsel for  the  re- spondent that the theory of conspiracy is fit to be  accept-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 22  

ed.  We, therefore, reject the case of Sri G.K. Saini  of  a conspiracy to get him removed from the office of a Member of the Commission.     22. The main question is as to whether the allegation of the Chairman about Sri Saini giving her a slap is correct or not. Smt. Chowdhary was cross-examined for several weeks and her  statement  is at pages 1-181 in Vol. III of  the  paper book.  Her  family and the family of her husband  are  quite respectable and have been taking keen interest in the  State politics.  Her father became a Member of the Rajya Sabha  in 1975.  Earlier  he was a Deputy Minister  in  the  erstwhile State  of Papsu and later of Punjab. Her  father-in-law  was also a Member of the Lok Sabha since 1980. Earlier he was  a Member of the State Assembly for several decades. The Chair- man  was  married in 1968, passed her B.Ed.  examination  in 1971  and  soon  thereafter became a Member  of  the  Public Service  Commission.  Mr. Mittal contended that she  was  an inexperienced young person not well-equipped for work of the Commission, muchless for the office of the Chairman and  was pushed forward because of her connections with the  Congress Party. It has been suggested by the learned counsel that her father  or  some other member of her family must  have  been instrumental  in getting the present Reference made, but  we do  not  find any reason to assume so and we  will  have  to judge  her statement independent of this  consideration.  We also accept her case that she was not a tool in the hands of Sri Dabara Singh and did not take any step at his behest  or with a view to please him..     23.  The  evidence in the case, however,  does  indicate that the Chairman was attempting to exercise her power in an authoritarian  manner  and lost her patience even  with  her colleagues if she was not readily obeyed. She claims that it is  the  prerogative of the Chairman of  the  Commission  to announce the results of interviews with candidates but as  a matter  of  grace  she consulted her  colleagues  before  so doing. On more than one occasion in the past she got annoyed with  the  other Members and attempted to get  them  removed from  the  Commission. In their letter to  the  Governor  of Punjab Sri Mitha, the then Member of the Commission, and Sri Deol  detailed the misbehavior on her part and alleged  that she was in the habit of threatening the Members to 599 accept  her commands whether right or wrong, while  boasting of  being capable to get any Member, who did not  obey  her, removed  and  otherwise  harassed. In paragraph  24  of  his affidavit Sri Saini has stated that Smt. Chowdhary had  made a  complaint against Sri Mitha and Sri Deol to the  Governor raising  untenable charges, but the Governor in  his  wisdom admonished  her for the frivolous nature of the charges.  In her  reply to the said statement Smt. Chowdhary argued  that the incident was not relevant for the purpose of the present inquiry, but in dealing with the factual aspect she did  not deny  its  correctness. In his  cross-examination  Sri  Deol stated how two years earlier, when he was also absent for  a couple  of  days, the Chairman sent him a note  telling  him that he had absented without prior information, and to which he  had  reacted by a query about the rule in  this  regard. Ultimately  the matter had to be discussed in a "meeting  or the Members". Sri Saini has also asserted in his  affidavits that a decision was taken on this issue in a meeting of  the Members of the Commission, but the Chairman still  continued to  deal with the question of absence of the Members in  her own  way. So far as the complaint of Sri Mitha and Sri  Deol to  the  Governor against Smt. Chowdhary is  concerned,  the prevaricative  answers given by her during this part of  her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 22  

cross-examination  leave  an indelible impression  that  she does  not associate any merit with being frank and  straight forward.  She  however admitted that sometime  in  November, 1980 she had made a complaint against Sri Mitha and Sri Deol to  the Governor (page 74, Vol- III of the paper book).  She further  stated that she was not. given a copy of  the  com- plaint  made against her, but she had to accept that  around February 1982 when she and the other Members of the  Commis- sion  met the Governor on an invitation by the latter for  a cup  of  tea,  Sri Mitha complained that  whenever  she  was personally  on  an Interview Board and an expert had  to  be appointed,  she would never consult the other  Members.  Ac- cording  to  her version the Governor upheld  her  stand  by declaring that it was her prerogative as the Chairman of the Commission. The manner in which she contradicted herself  on matters  of details about the said complaint reinforces  the conclusion  that not all her testimony can be taken  at  its face  value. However, that does not conclude the  case.  The other  three  Members of the Commission have  pledged  their oath  in support of the allegation that the  respondent  had slapped the Chairman. The circumstances in which the  things proceeded  also corroborated their version. Over  and  above all  this, the statements made by the respondent himself  go to support to a great extent Smt. Chowdhary’s case of physi- cal  assault. Let us now consider the evidence of Sri  Brar, Sri Deol and Sri Lall. 600     24.  Mr.  Brar had served the Indian Army for  38  years before  he  retired as a Major General. He was  the  General Officer Commanding, Punjab, Himachal and Haryana, and  there is  no  ground for doubting his verasity as a  witness.  Mr. Deol was the Head of the Department of Political Science  at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Ludhiana before his appointment as  a Member  of  the  Commission, and appears to  be  a  reliable person.  According to the case of the respondent,  Mr.  Deol had  himself earlier protested against the manner  of  func- tioning  of  the Chairman which in his opinion  amounted  to misbehaviour. The Chairman also had made a complaint against him to the Governor on the basis of some frivolous  charges. It cannot, therefore, be legitimately suggested that he  was either  such  a close friend of the Chairman  or  under  her thumb  so  as to concoct a story and send a  letter  to  the Governor  immediately  after the unfortunate  incident.  Al- though  many suggestions were thrown to him and to Mr.  Brar in  their  crossexamination for the purpose of  an  argument that  they  should be disbelieved, we do not find  any  sub- stance therein. We are satisfied that what prompted them  to act in the present case was not their interestedness in  the Chairman or any prejudice against the respondent, but  their disapproval and shock at the physical violence in which  the respondent  indulged in the open corridor of the  Commission building. So far as Mr. Lal is concerned, in the opinion  of Sri Saini, he did not have requisite qualification for being appointed as a Member. According to the case of the respond- ent,  Mr. Lall may have been prejudiced against him  on  ac- count  of his (respondent’s) view on Sri Lall’s  eligibility to hold the office, but that does not explain his conduct in joining the other two Members in their complaint against Sri Saini.     25.  Mr. Mittal elaborately dealt with the  direct  evi- dence  of the incident and urged that there were  discrepan- cies  in the statements of these three witnesses  sufficient to  discredite their testimony. We are not in a position  to agree  with him and we proceed to briefly indicate our  rea- sons.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 22  

   26. Let us now consider the evidence with respect to the details  of the incident. Admittedly the Chairman,  the  re- spondent and the other three Members of the Commission were, in  the Committee room on 24.11. 1982,  interviewing  candi- dates for appointment to certain posts. The sitting  contin- ued till about 1.15 p.m. when all the aforesaid five persons along with Dr. P.R. Sondhi (Retired Director, Haryana Health Service),  who  was assisting the Commission as  an  expert, came  out  of the Committee Room through the  doors  opening into the-cor- 601 ridor. A plan of the building has been placed on the records of  this  case. Admittedly the entire party of  six  started moving  in  the  same direction towards the  office  of  the Chairman.  The Chairman indicated her intention to  talk  to Sri  Saini about his absence, in privacy; and the  two  pro- ceeded  further,  forming a separate group,  and  the  other Members  discretely slowed down their pace. Dr. P.R.  Sondhi has not appeared as a witness in the case. When the respond- ent  and the Chairman were near the doors of the  office  of the  Chairman, the physical act of the incident took  place. Earlier  the Chairman had expressed her displeasure  on  the absence  of  Sri Saini. Sri Saini insisted that he  had  in- formed  the  office  in advance, and that she  must  put  in writing  whatever she had to say. According to the  evidence of the Chairman, she asked Sri Saini as to what was there to put in writing and she was going to complete the sentence by adding  that  she would put in writing  whatever  Sri  Saini would suggest, but before she could do so, she received from Sri  Saini a hard slap across her face. She says  that  this happened when she was politely talking to Sri Saini. We  are not inclined to accept her statement that the respondent had slapped  her  "without  any provocation" as  stated  in  her complaint  petition and in her first affidavit filed  before this  Court, and that she was talking to him  "politely"  as mentioned  in  her  cross-examination. The  version  of  the respondent  with  respect  to the manner in  which  she  was asking  for his explanation may be correct. She was used  to her  arrogant  ways and authoritarian manner  while  talking even  with  her colleagues, and hence the statement  of  Sri Saini may be correct that she was assuming a "bossy posture" and "was insisting on a spot oral explanation" from him. The respondent  was  a lawyer of 17 years standing when  he  was appointed a Member of the Commission. The evidence does  not indicate  that  he was schizophrenic, prone  to  be  excited without a cause and it would therefore be very unnatural  to assume.  that although the Chairman was talking to  him  po- litely and did not give any reason for provocation whatsoev- er the respondent hit her.     27.  All the three Members of the Commission are  unani- mous  and emphatic in stating that the respondent  did  slap the  Chairman hard on her face. They also say that this  was without  provocation.  By this part of  their  statement  we understand  that  there was no physical provocation  on  the part  of the Chairman. Mr. Mittal, the learned  counsel  for the  respondent, strenuously contended that  their  evidence also suggest that the Chairman was not talking rudely or  in a bossy manner with the respondent when the latter hit  her, and  this  is  very unnatural. We have  gone  through  their affidavits as well as their statements in the cross-examina- tion. The affidavit and evidence of each of 602 these witnesses have to be considered in their totality  and a  part of a sentence in their deposition cannot be  allowed to  be picked up in isolation and analysed and scanned as  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 22  

statutory  provision. In their joint letter written  to  the Governor soon after the incident they stated thus: "Mr.  G.K. Saini was walking ahead with Mrs. Santosh  Chowd- hary,  the Chairman. She was apparently inquiring  from  him about  his absence from the interviews on the  previous  two days".                 (emphasis supplied) Sri Brar was asked in his cross-examination about the use of the word "apparently" and he explained that while discussing the general details of the conversation Sri Lal and Sri Deol were not sure of having heard the first portion of conversa- tion.  Sri Deol stated that the Chairman asked Sri Saini  to come  ahead and therefore they, that is, the other  Members, slowed down in their pace. In the statement recorded by  the Chief  Secretary, Sri Lall also said that the  Chairman  and the respondent were walking ahead and they "over-heard"  the Chairman. The picture which emerges is that the talk between the Chairman and the respondent was not meant for others and they  were  not talking very loudly. It is,  therefore,  not expected that the Members could hear every single word which passed  between the two. If their voice was not  raised  and they  were not shouting at each other, one would not  assume that  there was a quarrel going on. In this  background  the Members  in their joint letter used the  word  "apparently". Their statement that the attack on the Chairman was  without any provocation was based on the physical side of the entire incident and was an expression of opinion with regard to it. Although, however, they could not hear their talk  properly, which  was going on not in high-pitched or raised voice,  it cannot  be  suggested that they were not in  a  position  to watch  as  to what the two were actually doing. It  was  day time  and from the plan which is on the records of the  case it is clear that the place where all this was happening  was not poorly lighted. The total distance between the Committee Room  and  the office of the Chairman was 66  feet  and  the distance  between the two groups could not be so long so  as to  place  the Members of the Commission as not to  be  sure about  the physical activities of the two ahead.  Their  im- pression  as  to what they actually saw cannot  be  confused with  what  they could make out of the discussion  going  on between the two. The consistent evidence also indicates that the  Chairman  and Sri Saini were walking  ahead  while  ap- proaching the office room and before the assault took  place they  had  reached  the door and were  standing  there.  The witnesses, however, did not stop 603 and continued walking towards the Chairman and the  respond- ent.  The suggestion of Mr. Mittal, appearing on  behalf  of the  respondent, that if they could not hear the talk  going on between the parties properly, they could also not see the physical side of the incident cannot be accepted. The  three witnesses  were  cross-examined  at great  length  and  were subjected to a very large number of searching questions, and we  do not find any material coming out of the same  on  the basis of which they can be discredited. We accordingly  rely upon their evidence which indicates that although they  were not  able  to properly hear the talk going  on  between  the Chairman  and  Sri  Saini and picked up  only  fragments  of discussion,  they clearly watched their physical  activities without any chance of mistake. Their version of the physical part  of the incident must, therefore, be accepted which  is to  a great extent corroborated by the  respondent’s  state- ments  and the affidavits themselves. Accordingly,  we  hold that  the  Chairman did not attack or intimidate  Sri  Saini with  physical violence, and Sri Saini losing his  self-con- trol  at the arrogance of the Chairman in her talk with  him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 22  

slapped her as alleged.     28.  It has been contended by Mr. Mittal that  from  the evidence  of  Sri Brar and Sri Lall it  appears  that  their group  almost reached the point where the Chairman  and  Sri Saini  were  standing and except for a very  short  distance between  the  two groups they ultimately formed  one  single group in which the relative position of the Chairman and Sri Saini was such, as stated by Mr. Lall in his  cross-examina- tion, that it was not possible for the respondent to hit the Chairman  hard on her face. For the basis on which any  such inference  can  be  drawn, one has to indulge in  a  lot  of imagination. The statements relied upon do not lead to  this conclusion.  Besides,  the description given  by  the  three witnesses  in  this regard cannot be scanned with  a  micro- scope nor the available evidence is sufficient to  determine with geometrical precision the exact points where  everybody stood at the crucial moment. So far the version of Sri Saini is concerned, we agree with him that it was not a completely unprovoked  situation in which he had hit the Chairman.  But we do not accept his statement as correct that the  provoca- tion  was not limited to a verbal duel and extended  to  the Chairman  raising her hand as if to assault him,  justifying him to slap her.     29.  Mr.  Mittal has also relied  upon  certain  circum- stances  which  according to him disproved the case  of  the complainant. Great emphasis has been led on the statement of Smt.  Chowdhary’s husband to the Press describing the  inci- dent  as a minor one. This is a natural conduct. If  a  lady occupying the high position of a Chairman of a Public  Serv- ice 604 Commission  is  physically assaulted, it  is  expected  that people closely related to her and interested in  maintaining her  high  dignity would like to hush-up the  matter  rather than give it a wide publicity. It is, therefore, not  possi- ble  to discredit the story of assault on the basis  of  the newspaper report. It has been next argued that having regard to  the  incident taking place in the open corridor  of  the building and the position of the room or the rooms where the members  of  the staff sit, it was to be  expected  that  at least some members of the staff must have witnessed what had happened  but  none  has come as a witness  to  support  the allegation. This also is not an unexpected conduct on  their part.  There  is nothing unnatural if they  decided  not  to involve  themselves  in  their individual  capacities  in  a dispute  of this nature. Besides, there is a  resolution  on the  record of this proceeding passed by the members of  the staff collectively condemning the incident in general terms. It has been suggested on behalf of the respondent that  this has  been obtained by the Chairman by exercising her  influ- ence. If some of the employees of the Commission had come to the witness box, the same criticism would have been made  by the respondent against their evidence. We are also conscious of the fact that Sri Sondhi who was assisting the Commission as an expert has not been examined in the case. This  merely indicates  that he was not willing or available  to  support either party.     30. The consistent evidence of the three Members of  the Commission further indicates that an attempt to bring  about a  reconciliation by persuading the respondent to tender  an apology  was made but failed. The Chairman was  under  great stress  both physical and mental and she had to be  consoled by  her colleagues. We would at this stage  again  emphasise that  no special reason can be suggested for the Members  to cook up a false story, specially when they had also  earlier

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 22  

tasted  the  arrogance of the Chairman, and  complaints  and countercomplaints  between her and at least one of them  had reached even the ears of the Governor.     31.  Now  the question is whether Sri Saini deserved to  be  re- moved  on  account of his conduct.  Persons  occupying  high public  offices should maintain irreproachable behaviour.  A certain  minimum standard of code of conduct is expected  of them.  What  may be excusable for an  uneducated  young  man cannot be tolerated if a Member of Public Service Commission is  involved.  Besides,  it has to be  remembered  that  the respondent and the Chairman were not thrashing out a person- al  matter  or  a private dispute. They  were  discussing  a question involving their office and this in  broad-day-light in the open corridor of ? 605 the Commission’s building. Whatever the provocation  offered by the Chairman, the respondent was not justified in  losing his  cool to the extent of indulging in  physical  violence. That  the violence should have been directed against a  lady makes  his conduct all the more reprehensible. In our  view, Sri  Saini miserably failed in maintaining the  standard  of conduct  expected of a Member of the Commission and  thereby brought  great disrepute to his office. Hence our answer  to the  question referred by the President is that Sri  Saini’s conduct amounted to misbehavior within the meaning of  Arti- cle 317(1) of the Constitution and it rendered him liable to be  removed  from  his office of the Member  of  the  Punjab Public Service Commission. N.P.V. 606