http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 27  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3411-3421 of 2005

PETITIONER: Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors.

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/05/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

WITH  CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3422, 3410, 3409, 3405-3408,  3456-59, 3446-3447, 3402, 3449-3455, 3463-64, 3460,  3401, 3445, 3399, 3404, 3444, 3441, 3439, 3428-3436,  3440, 3438, 3442, 3437, 3403, 3427, 3461, 3400, 3477,  3475,  3423, 3448, 3472-74, 3489, 3491 of 2005 and W.P  (C) No. 14 of 2004

S.B. SINHA, J.

       The framers of the Constitution of India created some Constitutional  Institutions to uphold the Constitutional values; Public Service Commission  being one of them. Article 315 of the Constitution of India mandates that  there shall be a Public Service Commission for the Union and a Public  Service Commission for each of the State. Article 320 provides for the  functions of the Public Service Commission stating that it is the duty of the  Union Public Service Commission and the State Public Service  Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of  the Union and the services of the State respectively. In relation to certain  matters the Union of India and the States are enjoined with the duties to  consult the Public Service Commission.  With a view to uphold the dignity  and independence of the Public Service Commission, the salaries,  allowances and pensions payable to the members or staff of the  Commission, are directed to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India  and/or the Consolidated Fund of the State. A Chairman of Public Service  Commission is removable only  by following the procedure laid down  under  the Constitution of India.  

       One Shri Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu was the Chairman of the Punjab  Public Service Commission between 1996 to 2002.  Allegations were made  against him that he got a large number of persons appointed on extraneous  consideration including monetary consideration.  Such appointments were  said to have been made during the period 1998 to 2001.  Raids were  conducted in his house on more than one occasion.  A large sum of money  (about Rs. 16 crores) was recovered  from his custody and other relatives.   Two First Information Reports; one on 25.3.2002 being FIR No. 7/02 and  the other on 30.4.2002 being FIR No. 24/02; were lodged against him in that  behalf.  In the said First Information Reports nine officers of PCS (Executive  Branch) were named but later on the allegations against two of them, viz.,  Rahul and Randip were withdrawn. As against sixty three officers  involved  in the PCS allied services; First Information Report was lodged only against  one Kamaljeet Singh.  So far as appointment to the posts of Tehsildar is  concerned, FIR was lodged against none.           Result sheets of the nominated candidates were seized on 17.5.2002.   Answer sheets of PCS (Executive Branch) were also seized.  On or about

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 27  

21.5.2002 the Vigilance Bureau of the State of Punjab wrote a letter to the  Chief Secretary, Punjab alleging  that most of the examinations held during  the period of Shri Sidhu were tainted. On the next day, a memorandum of 90  pages was issued.  So far as the nominated candidates  are concerned,  Vigilance Department of State, as noticed hereinbefore, received the answer  sheets for 1998 examination  and sent a report to the investigating agency on  21.5.2002.  On that date itself the nominated candidates were given charge  of the Executive Magistrate but on the next date, i.e., on 22.5.2002, the  Vigilance Bureau on purported receipt of the details of interview of  nominated candidates sent a note to a Chief Secretary whereupon orders of  termination were passed on 23.5.2002.  All the officers in the category of  nominated executive officers were about to complete their period of  probation.  The services of the nominated candidates (Class I Officers) were  terminated simpliciter purported to be in terms of the Rules, i.e., by  terminating the probation.  

       The appellants herein comprise of four categories of officers, that is to  say, (1) Direct recruits in Executive Class I.  In the said category services of  28 persons were terminated. (2) Direct recruits (Allied etc.) being in  Executive Class II.  In the said category services of 63 persons were  terminated. (3) Nominated candidates being in Executive Class I.  Services  of 18 persons from the said category were terminated. (4) Judicial Officers.   Judicial Officers were appointed in four batches.  Four examinations were  held for the respective recruitment years of 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000  and 2000-2001.           On the judicial side, following vacancies existed: 1998            -       21 1999            -       14 2000            -         8 2001            -       21 Total           -       64

       The number of officers whose services were terminated in the  aforementioned batches are 21, 14, 8, 21 respectively totalling 64 persons  respectively.   

       A further vigilance report was made on 7.6.2002.  Admittedly no  appointment was made out from the 2001 batch.    

       Services of the Direct Recruit Executive Class I and Class II were  terminated  by way of dismissal from services vide order dated 24.8.2002  only on the premise that the criminal prosecution had been initiated against  the aforementioned Shri Sidhu.    

       Besides the aforementioned categories some candidates also belong to  distinct categories, viz., Freedom Fighter, Handicapped, SCOP, etc.  

So far as the Judicial Officers are concerned, indisputably, the High  Court acted on the basis of media reports alleging that wards of some sitting  Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court have been favoured by the  Chairman of the Public Service Commission.  The Chief Justice of the High  Court  constituted a Committee chaired by a senior Judge.  On a request  made by the High Court answer sheets  of nine candidates were handed over  to the said Committee on  30.5.2002.  No other record was, however, made  available to the Committee.  A report was submitted by the said Committee  wherein recommendations were made that the appointments made of the  judicial officers in all the four batches should stand cancelled although  selection of the officers from the 1998 batch was not in question.   The said  report, however, was accepted by the  Full Court.   

When the recommendations of the High Court were received by the  Government of Punjab, a query was raised as to on what basis the  recommendations  for cancellation of the appointments of the 1998 batch   candidates were made.  Thereupon, another Committee was constituted.  The  Chairman of the said Committee was a member of the earlier Committee.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 27  

The report of the Committee thereafter was again placed before the Full  Court and the same was approved on 12.8.2002.   The  services of the  Judicial Officers were terminated on 27.9.2002.   

Subsequent to the said orders of dismissal, however,  no further action  was taken by the State for cancellation of other examinations or termination  of the officers belonging to other services.  However, in regard to the  examinations held in respect of the other posts, the Governor of Punjab  appointed a committee on 20th July, 2004. A report was submitted by the  said Committee on 20th October, 2004 stating that a distinction is possible to  be made between the tainted and the non-tainted officers.  It made some  suggestions and recommendations in relation to the selection process to be  resorted to and the appointments to be made in future.  

       At this juncture, we may take note of some other relevant facts. Upon  commencement  of the investigation by the Vigilance Bureau one  Jagman  Singh became an approver.  He purported to have made a statement under  Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a learned Magistrate  on 24.1.2002.   Two other alleged accomplices of Shri Sidhu, viz., Shri Prem  Sagar and Shri Paramjit Singh also allegedly made their statements  in term  of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a learned  Magistrate on 13.5.2002.  On the basis of the said statements; raids for  finding out other and further incriminating materials were conducted on 19th  April, 2002 at different places including  the lockers/fixed deposits/bank  accounts purported to have been opened by Shri Sidhu in his own  name as  also in the name of his relatives.  Approximately a sum of Rs. 16 crores was  recovered during the said raids.                      The Appellants herein along with some others being aggrieved by the  said actions on the part of the State filed a large number of writ petitions  before the Punjab and Haryana  High Court.    

       The said writ petitions ultimately came up for hearing before a Full  Bench of the said High Court.  Two of the members of the said Bench were  Chairmen of the two committees appointed by the learned Chief Justice.   

       At the hearing of the said writ petition, however, the learned counsel  appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners stated that they had no objection  to the said Hon’ble Judges hearing the writ petitions.  On or about 30th  January, 2002, the Appellants \026 Judicial Officers filed an application for  supply of copies of the reports as also the documents including the answer  books which had been relied upon by the High Court at one point of time or  the other for the purpose of passing the orders of termination.   The High  Court claimed privilege as regards the reports of the Committee.  The State  of Punjab also took a stand that the contents of the report of the Vigilance  Bureau could not be disclosed, as by reasons thereof, the investigation of the  case may be put in jeopardy.  Oral submissions on behalf of the Judicial  Officers were closed on 5.2.2003 and they were asked to file written  submissions   by 6.2.2003; but curiously, however, on 6.2.2003, the reports  of the Committee as also the mark-sheets were made available for inspection  of the learned counsel.   

       During hearing before the High court, interestingly, the learned  counsel appearing on behalf of the State made a statement  that those  candidates who had become successful in the subsequent re-conducted  interviews or re-conducted examinations, as the case may be, shall be taken  back in service and their seniority would be maintained.              The High Court reserved its judgment on 5.3.2003.  On that date,  some records were kept in a sealed cover.  By reason of the impugned  judgment which was delivered on 7.7.2003, the writ petitions were  dismissed.           The main contentions raised on behalf  of the writ petitioners before  the High Court were:  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 27  

(1)     in terminating the services, the State committed gross violation of the  provisions of Article 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India;  (2)     Principles of natural justice were completely given a go-by by the  Stae in passing the impugned orders of termination. (3)     Some of the Appellants having successfully completed three years of  probation, they would be deemed to have been confirmed  in terms of  Rule 23 of the 1976 Rules and, thus, their services could not have  been terminated without holding regular inquiry in terms of Punjab  Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, ’the  1970 Rules’);   (4)     In any event, Rule 23 of the  1970 Rules  could not have been invoked  for dispensing with the services of such of the Appellants as it had not  been shown that their work, conduct and performance were  unsatisfactory during the period of probation; (5)     No proper material by way of admissible evidence having been made  available, on the basis whereof the State could form a bona fide  opinion that the entire selection processes were tainted, the impugned  orders of termination must be held to be bad in law.  

       The contentions raised on behalf of the State, on the other hand, were  that:  (1)     Shri Sidhu during his tenure from September, 1996 to March 26, 2002  exercised the powers of  the Commission himself to the exclusion of  all other members, which itself establishes that the selection processes  were bad in law; (2)     Writ petitions were filed by the members of the State Commission  contending that Shri Sidhu had manipulated the system for ensuring  the selection of only those who had paid money or had  recommendations of the high authorities.    (3)     The satisfaction of the State was based upon the report of the  Vigilance Bureau which included the statements made by Shri Jagman  Singh which clearly pointed to the guilt of Shri Sidhu as he had  disclosed that that Shri Sidhu had made a large number of  appointments of the prospective candidates and during investigation it  was revealed that question papers and answer scripts were smuggled  out of the headquarters of the Commission and at times, blank answer  sheets  had been handed over to the candidates and special  instructions had also been issued to the examiners to award higher  marks to the less meritorious candidates  and at the same time, award  less marks to the more meritorious candidates.   (5)     Shri Sindhu amassed assets worth Rs. 22 crores during his  chairmanship by adopting illegal means.   (6)     The entire selection process was completely vitiated and it was not  possible to separate the meritorious candidates from the others  although the decision to terminate all the appointments and  cancellation of all the examinations was fair and bona fide.                    The contentions raised on behalf of the High Court were  that:  (1)     The services of the judicial officers  were terminated  as it came to  light that the recommendations made  during the tenure of Shri Sidhu  were manipulated, unfair and vitiated in law.  (2)     Two sub-committees were constituted to look into the illegalities and  irregularities committed by the Commission in the matter of selection  of the judicial officers and the reports submitted by them were rightly  accepted by the Full Court, pursuant to and in furtherance whereof the  State Government terminated their services.  

       The High Court in passing the impugned judgment considered the  aforementioned submissions of the parties.  It noticed a large number of  decisions and opined that the following propositions be culled out therefrom:  

"(i)   The rules of natural justice are not required  to be followed in cases of cancellation of selection   which is vitiated due to fraud, manipulation,  corruption or large scale irregularities and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 27  

illegalities committed by those responsible for  conducting the selection.  

(ii)   Even if some deserving candidates suffer on  account of cancellation of such selection, the  decision taken by the competent authority cannot  be castigated as arbitrary or unreasonable.  

(iii)   The Court cannot sustain the selection of  some persons where the process of selection is  vitiated due to manipulations, fraud etc. and it is in  public interest that the entire selection is nullified.  

(iv)    The court cannot sit in appeal over the  decision of the competent authority.  If some  tangible material is available with the government  for forming an opinion that the selection is tainted,  the court cannot interfere with its decision."

       The Full Bench of the High Court, however, did not make any  endeavour to make any distinction  between the cases of different categories  of officers, but relying on or on the basis of  the reports and documents  submitted by the Vigilance Bureau opined that the same revealed the  following features:  (a)     Either question papers were leaked to the  candidates  or instructions were given to the  examiners to give higher marks.  

(b) In some cases, the marks awarded to the  candidates were manipulated and upgraded.  

(c) The result-sheets recovered from the  Commission revealed that most of the candidates  who paid money had been given very high marks  in the interview.

(d) Those candidates who secured high marks in  the written examintion were given poor marks in  the interview either because they were not to be  selected and they had not paid money or for  shunting them to the Allied Services.  

(e) The procedure for appointment of examiners  was entirely controlled by Shri Ravinderpal Singh  Sidhu and he gave instructions for award of  specific marks to the chosen candidates."

(f) Some of the irregularities found in the answer- books of some of the candidates selected for direct  recruitment were taken into consideration by the  High Court by way of illustration in arriving at its  findings.   

       The High Court moreover pointed out some irregularities  found in the  answer sheets  of the some of the candidates in regard whereto 13 purported  instances were noticed by it.  Cases of some of the candidates who were  denied selection to PCS (EB) by giving unusually low marks in the  interview were highlighted in the judgment.  As many as nine such cases  were noticed to have been belonging to this category of irregularities.  The  High Court furthermore noticed the purported irregularities in the  recruitments made for appointment to PCS (Judicial Branch) from the  written submissions made  by the State in respect whereof, cases of 10  candidates had specifically been noticed.  So far as the purported similarity

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 27  

in grant of marks in the interview is concerned, the High Court noticed that  out of the 263 candidates interviewed for selection for direct recruitment to  PCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services, 172 candidates were given  identical marks by the interviewers.  230 candidates  had obtained marks  having difference of one mark and 58 candidates having difference of two  marks.   So far as the nominated candidates are concerned, the High Court   noticed  that no allegation could be made as regards the irregularities  and  illegalities in conducting the written examination, but opined:  "(1) In Register A-1 and Register C (year 1996)  pertaining to nominated  candidates, there is 100%  identity for both selectees and non-selectees.  In  case of Register A-2 for year 1994, there is 100%  identity in case of award of marks to 3 selectees.   Considering the overall position of 18 selectees,  there is a difference of 1 mark of 1 out of 3  interviewers in the marks of one candidate.  Thus,  same number of marks were awarded to more than  95% candidates.

(2) Even if all the 141 nominated candidates are  considered there is a difference of 1 mark in 22 out  of 25 cases.  Larger difference is found only in 3  cases.  Then in 9 cases only  one interviewer  differs by 1 mark and in 1 case one interviewer  differs by 2 marks.  This again indicates an  unusual pattern showing pre-planning and  manipulation.  Here also, same number of marks  were awarded to more than 98% candidates."

       It furthermore noticed certain general features in respect of the marks  given at the via-voce to the other candidates.   

       The judgment of the High Court can be divided into two parts.   

       (A) The High Court in general opined: "From the above discussion and examination of  the aforesaid illustrative cases and looking into  the  record including the statements of the alleged touts  as made in court under Section 164 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure, there is no manner of doubt  that it is not in a few cases only that corrupt means  were adopted to secure the selection of candidates  but the same modus operandi was being adopted in  all the selections which vitiated the entire process  of selections  and that large scale corruption,  irregularities, manipulation of marks and other  illegalities are writ large in making selections by  the Commission during the tenure of Shri  Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu.  We have perused the  statements of the alleged touts who have given the  details of the modus operandi adopted by Shri  Sidhu.  The examiners were instructed to award  specific number of marks to the chosen candidates  and pull down the others which resulted in the  ouster of many meritorious candidates.  In some  cases, question papers were given to the candidates  one evening before the examination.  There has  been manipulation of marks in large number of  cases to ensure the selection of favoured  candidates at the cost of other meritorious  candidates.  The entire selection process during the  tenure of Shri Sidhu was indeed a one man show.   He appointed the examiners of his confidence who  were playing to his tunes and whom he could trust  in carrying out his nefarious plans.  He could,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 27  

indeed, get any one selected who could approach  him either though money or through "Sifarish".  It  is difficult to say if one could be selected on merit  during the tenure of Shri Sidhu and may be some  were selected on merit  as well but the whole  process of selection having been polluted with  corruption, it is not possible to identify them. The  statements as made by the alleged touts were cross  checked by the Vigilance Department and the  government and it was found that corruption was  all pervasive in the selection of candidates to  different services during the tenure of Shri Sidhu."

                       [Emphasis supplied]

       (B) In regard to the Judicial Officers, it was opined:  

"In the case of selection of PCS Judicial Officers,  the High Court on its administrative side had also  examined the records including the answer sheets  and noticed that the answer sheets of some of the  non-selected candidates were qualitatively better  than those selected and that the performance of  most of the selected candidates was below average  and that the marks given to them were  disproportionate to their answers which even by  the most liberal standards  could not be justified.   The High Court also found that there had been  large scale tampering of marks in some of the  answer sheets and that selections had not been  made on merit.  

During the course of arguments, the record was  produced before us including the answer sheets.   We perused quite a few of them and found that the  irregularities as pointed out in the earlier part of  the judgment are there.  Some of the answer sheets  show that there are interpolations with the marks  originally allotted by the examiners and this was  obviously done with a view to ensure the selection  of those candidates.  The State Government was,  therefore, justified in cancelling the selections in  entirety and no fault can be found with its decision  in this regard because in these circumstances grain  could not be separated from the chaff and the  meritorious candidates had also to suffer."

                       [Emphasis supplied]

       We have heard a large number of counsel appearing in the appeals  representing different categories of the appellants.   

       The principal submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are:  

(1)     As the appellants had become civil servants, their services were  protected in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and,  thus, the orders of termination having been passed without complying  with the provisions of the statutory rules as also the principles of  natural justice, the same were vitiated in law. (2)     As the appellants served the State without any blemish on their part  whatsoever, and having passed departmental examinations and having  been given higher responsibilities, their services could not have been  terminated  on the basis of the purported case of mass corruption  without making an attempt to separate the non-tainted candidates from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 27  

the tainted ones and that too in great haste and, that too without taking  into consideration the relevant materials.  The impugned orders also  suffer from total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities  of the State.     (3)     The broad proposition, that all decisions taken during the period of  Shri Sidhu were illegal, demonstrates arbitrary approach  on the part  of the State.   (4)     The services of the nominated candidates could not have been  terminated during and/or on the expiry of the period of probation  in  view of the protection to the employees conferred under Article 311  of the Constitution of India could not have been ignored.  In any  event, during the period of probation, their service could not have  been terminated without initiating an appropriate disciplinary  proceeding on the ground of misconduct. Some of the probationers in  view of Rule 23 of the 1976 Rules having crossed the maximum  period of  probation would be deemed to  have been confirmed.  It  was pointed out that five probationers had already crossed the  specified period of 3 years of probation  and remaining 13 were  nearing completion of the said period.  (5)     When an order of termination of services carries a clear imputation of  corruption, the same would amount to dismissal  from services  requiring compliance of principles of natural justice.  (6)     Before the services of the probationers could be terminated the juristic  foundation and stigma attached thereto were required to be considered  for determining the question as to whether the dismissal was for non- satisfactory performance of service or stigmatic in nature.  (7)     While the names are registered after the selection, cancellation of the  selection would mean  cancellation of the entry from the register and  thus, Rule 17 of the Rules were violated.   (8)     The High Court committed a serious error in holding that the orders  passed by the State Government were sustainable in law relying on  the decisions of this Court which can be classified as under:  (a)     Cases where the ’event’ has been investigated;  (b)     Cases where tainted were separated from the non-tainted;  (c)     Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed  conclusively;  (d)     Cases where the selection was made but appointment was not  made; (e)     Cases where the candidates were ineligible and appointments  were found to be contrary to law or rules;  (f)     Cases where there was hardly any time gap in between  appointment and the criminal investigation.   (9)     Writ petitioners had legitimate expectations that their services would  be confirmed.   (10)    If omnibus orders based on such facts could be issued, there was no  reason as to why if all the selections were tainted, no action had been  taken in regard to the selections made in other years or for other  services.   (11)    In view of the fact that the State Government itself had constituted a  sub-committee is suggestive of the fact that the Government itself was  not satisfied that the reports of the Vigilance Bureau were to be  treated as sacrosanct.    (12)    The Vigilance reports were found to be otherwise based on  insufficient evidence and, thus, a separate committee was felt  necessary to be constituted for finding out the truth.   (13)    Before any action was taken, it was necessary for the State to satisfy  itself about the allegations made therein upon verifying the contents of  the reports in regard to the mal-functioning of the Punjab Public  Service Commission.   (14)    The decision of the State having been taken in undue haste, the same  was mala  fide in nature.   (15)    The principles of natural justice have been violated as the contents of  the reports of the Vigilance were not disclosed to the appellants and in  any event the State could not have claimed privilege in respect  thereto.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 27  

(16)    For the purpose of punishing the persons who have taken recourse to  illegal measures, no honest and innocent candidate could have been  punished.   (17)    The High Court acted illegally and without jurisdiction in relying  upon the written submissions made on behalf of the State although,  many statements made therein were not made on affidavit.   (18)    Grant of inspection of the answer sheets alone was not sufficient in  the instant case as the orders passed by the State were required to be  judged on the basis of the statements contained therein and supported  by the affidavits.   (19)    It is not unusual that the candidates may get higher marks in the  written examination and less in the interview.   (20)    As the State has alleged fraud, a heavy burden lay upon it to prove the  same which is utterly failed to comply with.  The High Court failed to  take into consideration that the interview committees were headed by  sitting Judges of the High Court and thus it is preposterous to suggest  that any illegality was committed in the interviews.   (21)    Four different selection processes having been undergone in four  different years, all selections could not have been painted with the  same brush, so far as advertisements were separate as well as the  members of the committees were different and, particularly, having  regard to the fact that there was no allegation that the Chairman of the  Commission could prevail over the other members as also in view of  the fact that it is expert alone who gives the grading.   (22)    Out of the 10 candidates who were named in the first information  report, 7 candidates belonged to 2001 batch who had not been  appointed at all and, thus, only because one or two candidates  happened to be the wards of sitting Judges of the High Court,  although they were toppers of their batch, the services of all of them  could not have been terminated.   (23)    The sub-committee in its report took notice of answer sheets of only 9  candidates and, furthermore no inquiry having been conducted in  relation to the 1998 batch, the Full Court of the High Court must be  held to have failed to apply its mind properly.   (24)    Two of the Hon’ble Judges who headed the sub-committees being  biased, they could not have taken part in the decision making process  and they should have recused themselves.   

       The High Court also committed a serious error in relying upon the  decisions where the principles of natural justice have been held to be  inapplicable as the said cases relate to:  

(1)     mass cheating adopted by the students in a Board Examination;  (2)     Where select lists have been prepared but no appointments have been  made;  (3)     Where appointments have been made but eligibility criteria have been  found to have been violated;  (4)     Where in no way verifications could have  been made as answer  sheets and other relevant documents were destroyed and the Chairman  had  resigned;  (5)     Where commission of mal practices were found to be apparent on the   face of the records;  

       Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submitted that:

(a)     the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied  with nor the requirements of the statutory provisions for  dispensation of services of the officers in terms of Article 311 of  the Constitution of India were required to be followed, as the  Chairman of the Public Service Commission has usurped complete  control thereover in breach of the rules as would be evident from  the fact that two members of the Commission even filed writ  petitions being CWP No. 14491 of 1997 and CWP No. 7952 of  2001 alleging that the Chairman had not been convening meetings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 27  

of the Commission and had usurped complete control thereover. (b)     Materials collected by the State before 23.5.2002 demonstrated  commission of large scale fraud in the selection process wherefor  two First Information Reports being FIR No. 7 dated 25.3.2002  and FIR No. 24 dated 30.4.2002 were registered.   (c)     During investigation, the statements of Jagman Singh were  recorded which clearly demonstrated that with the help of various  persons, many candidates paid huge amount to  Shri Sidhu for  getting selected in 1998 examinations and money, so collected,  was stashed in the lockers and put in the bank accounts of the  relatives of Shri Sidhu, most of whom now have left the country  and have been declared as proclaimed offenders.  56 accounts were  opened between the period 17.4.2002 and 19.4.2002 and over Rs.  16 crores were recovered from the lockers/bank accounts/fixed  deposits standing in the name of the Shri Sidhu and his relatives.   (d)     A huge amount has also been transferred through Hawala  transactions.  The Investigating Officer had also recorded the  inculpating statements of Shri Jaspreet Singh and others which  clearly point out that serious illegalities were committed in the  selection making process.   (e)     It is nobody’s case that the Chairman did not indulge in corruption.  (f)     Upon analyzing the mark sheets and other materials, the Vigilance  Bureau submitted its report wherein inter alia it was found that in  95% cases the Chairman and Members allotted identical marks in  the interview to the candidates which is next to impossible as the  members and the Chairman were supposed to judge the capabilities  of the candidates separately which clearly show that the provision  of Rule 17 (a) (iii) of the Commission Rules were flagrantly  violated or breached.   

       Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High  Court submitted that : (i)     as the selection of the Judicial Officers was contaminated at  source, keeping in view the nature of judicial posts, the High Court  was bound to take remedial measures to restore the credibility of  recruitment process and to safeguard the independence of  judiciary.   (ii)    In view of the fact that the  High Court found the matter  to  be a  case of pollution of selection at the source on account of  corruption, the Full Court of the High Court was convinced that the  selections were vitiated and thus,  no illegality has been committed  in giving effect to the legal consequences arising thereunder.   (iii)   The recommendations of the sub-committees being based on some  material and being in the nature of administrative decision, the  standard of proof, required to be applied, would be preponderance  of probability not beyond all reasonable doubts.  (iv)    In view of the well settled principles of law that justice should not  only be done but manifestly also seen to be done, the selection of  the Judicial Officers was not only required to be fair but also  transparent.   (v)     In the fresh selection only 13 candidates were selected and 22 were  not selected and in view of the fact that there was no complaint  against the fresh selection, the High Court must be held to have  proceeded on an objective criteria. (vi)    It is not open to the appellants herein to allege bias on the part of  the two learned Judges of the High Court on the premise that they  were in the Committee as the appellants themselves had consented  to their taking part in the hearing and, thus, they must be deemed  to have waived their right.                  We will make endeavours to deal with the cases of different  categories of officers separately as far as practicable.  

       Appointments to PCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services relate  to a single recruitment process.  The vacancies were of the year 1994 and  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 27  

1996 and those vacancies were advertised  by the Punjab Public Service  Commission in terms of Advertisement No. 10 dated 7.2.1998. This  advertisement pertained to 93 posts of different cadres of the State  Government.  Out of the aforementioned 93 posts, 28 posts were in PCS  (Executive Branch).

       There were 25 additional posts to be filled up by the nominated  departmental candidates.  However, out of the said vacant posts only 18  were filled up.  Amongst the 18 nominated candidates, 14 have been named  by the witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure and FIRs were lodged against them.  We have noticed  hereinbefore that out of total 28 candidates PCS (Executive Branch),  although, at the initial stage First Information Reports were lodged only  against 8 candidates, allegations against Rahul Gupta who is said to be the  son of another member of the Commission and Randeep Singh were  withdrawn.  

       In the Allied Services out of 63 candidates, First Information Report  was lodged as against only one of them.  So far as those who were appointed  on the post of Tehsildars are concerned, out of 19, First Information Report  was lodged against none.    

       It would be of some interest to note that as although in the year 1998,  a large number of persons were selected in other services as for example,  365 PCMS Doctors, 60 School Principals, 147 Veterinary Officers, 422  PCMS Doctors  and in the year 1999, 52 Medical Officers Dental, 147  Agriculture Development Officers, 69 Veterinary Officers and 81 Veterinary  Officers in 2002 but neither any enquiry was conducted by the State in this  behalf nor any action was taken to terminate the services of any of the  candidates of the said service.  

       The State admittedly conducted fresh interview for the nominated  candidates and held fresh examinations in respect of the Executive Officers  and non-Executive Officers.  So far as the nominated members are  concerned, three came to be re-selected out of 19 Tehsildars on the basis of  PCS Exam, 1998.

       It has also been pointed out that out of 18 nominated selectees who  had filed writ petitions in the High Court, only 15 candidates have filed  appeals before us and 12 have been named by the witnesses although First  Information Reports were initially lodged against them.  So far as direct  recruits to PCS (E.B.) are concerned,  18 have filed  appeals before us and  out of whom 7 were named by the witnesses and the First Information  Reports were lodged against them.  So far as the candidates selected in the  Allied Services are concerned, out of 63 selected candidates only 24 have  filed appeals before us and they are not named in the First Information  Report or as witnesses.  

       It is not in dispute that as regards PCS (E.B.) and Allied Services, the  names of the selectees have been registered in different registers.    

       So far as the judicial officers are concerned, First Information Report  has been lodged against the ten of them.  Seven candidates, out of the said  ten candidates named in the First Information Report, belonged to 2001  Batch.  Nobody is named in the First Information Report or figures in the  statements of the witnesses in respect of the 1998 batch. The 3 candidates  who have been named in the First Information Report are of 1999 batch and  2000 batch.  The candidates who were selected in 2001 have not been  appointed at all.  We have not, thus, taken into consideration their cases.   

       We at the outset would furthermore notice that having regard the  submissions made before us by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Rao that the services  of the appellants before us were terminated not in terms of the Rules but in  view of the commission of illegality in the selection process involved, we  need not consider the applicability of the relevant provisions of the statutes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 27  

as also the effect of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of  India.  An appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution of India would be void.  It would be a nullity.  [See Secretary,  State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCALE  247]  But before such a finding can be arrived at the appointing authority  must take into consideration the foundational facts.  Only when such  foundational facts are established, the legal principles can be applied.

       If the services of the appointees who had put in few years of service  were terminated; compliance of three principles at the hands of the State was  imperative, viz., to establish (1) Satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of  the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction  that the selection process was tainted; (2) determine the question that the  illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entire  selection process.  Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of materials were  required to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and  transparent manner;  (3) Whether  the sufficient material present enabled the  State to arrive at satisfaction that the officers in majority have been found to  be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt.     

       Once such findings were arrived at, all appointments traceable to the  officers concerned could be cancelled.   But admittedly, although there had  been serious imputations against Shri Sidhu being at the helm of the affairs  of the Commission, all decisions made by the Commission during his tenure  are yet to be set aside.  We do not intend to enter into the said controversy as  we were informed at the bar that the High Court itself is in sesin of the  matter.  We may, however, note  that Mr. Dwivedi in his usual frankness  stated that there may not be any answer to that query.   

       Apart from inferences drawn on certain facts and in particular the  circumstances enumerated by the High Court which have been repeated by  the learned counsel for the State before us, it is difficult to accept that it was  demonstrated by the State that it was absolutely impossible for it to separate  the innocent people from the tainted ones.                   It is also not a case where all the relevant records have been  destroyed.  The Vigilance Bureau does not say so.  Questions papers, answer  sheets and other documents are available.  Reports made by the Bureau were  prepared upon examination of the materials collected by it.  The High Court  itself has noticed that what is not available is the records relating to the  procedure adopted in regard to the appointment of paper setters.    It may be  true that such records could be destroyed only after a period of five years but  it has not been pointed out  by the State as to how by reason of the non- availability thereof, it became difficult for the authorities to arrive at the  correct facts.  We have not been informed that connecting materials were  also destroyed.  It has been noticed by the High Court that all relevant  information were available and submitted to the court.  It cannot, therefore,  be said that a fair investigation into the whole affair was an impossible task  or despite availability of all such records a thorough investigation had been  made so as to arrive at a satisfaction that the entire selection process suffered  from a large scale fraud.  It was also not been found that all appointments  were made on extraneous considerations including monetary consideration.   

       If fraud in the selection process was established, the State should not  have offered to hold a re-selection.  Seniority of those who were re-selected  ordinarily could not have been restored in their favour.  Such an offer was  evidently made as the State was not sure about the involvement of a large  number of employees.

       A distinction moreoever exists between a proven case of mass  cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of  corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved.   

       In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha and  Others [(1970) 1 SCC 648], the court came to a finding that the high

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 27  

percentage of marks obtained by the candidates who appeared at the  selection of the centre in question did give rise to a suspicion that unfair  means had been practised and the Board was justified in investigating the  case.  While the High Court held that despite the same, the principles of  natural justice was required to be complied with; this Court noticed the  reports of the experts and came to the conclusion that the results thereof  speaks for themselves.  It was noticed that whereas in other centers the  average of successful candidates was 50%, in the center in question, the  percentage of passing in different papers were unusually high ranging from  70% to 100%.  In that view of the matter, this Court held: "These figures speak for themselves. However, to  satisfy ourselves we ordered that some answer  books be brought for our inspection and many such  were produced. A comparison of the answer books  showed such a remarkable agreement in the  answers that no doubt was left in our minds that  the students had assistance from an outside source.  Therefore the conclusion that unfair means were  adopted stands completely vindicated.         This is not a case of any particular  individual who is being charged with adoption of  unfair means but of the conduct of all the  examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a  particular centre. If it is not a question of charging  any one individually with unfair means but to  condemn the examination as ineffective for the  purpose it was held. Must the Board give an  opportunity to all the candidates to represent their  cases? We think not. It was not necessary for the  Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if  the examinations as a whole were being cancelled.  The Board had not charged any one with unfair  means so that he could claim to defend himself.  The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair  means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it  would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold  a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each  individual case to satisfy itself which of the  candidates had not adopted unfair means. The  examination as a whole had to go."

       Such is not the case here.

       In Anamica Mishra and Others v. U.P. Public Service Commission,  Allahabad and Others [1990 (Supp) SCC 692], an error was found out at the  stage of calling candidates for interview.  This Court opined that as no defect  was pointed out in regard to the written examination and the sole objection  was confined to the exclusion of a group of successful candidates in  interview there was no justification for cancelling the written part of the  recruitment examination and the situation could have been appropriately met  by setting aside the recruitment and asking for fresh interview of all eligible  candidates on the basis of the written examination.

       Yet again in S.P. Biswas and Others v. State Bank of India [1991  Supp (2) SCC 354], the court refused to interfere with the result of the  examination as it was shown that there had been neither any mass copying  nor the final result was shown to have been influenced by the unfair means  by any candidate.   

       In those cases also tainted cases were separated from the non-tainted  cases.  Only, thus, in the event it is found to be an impossible or highly  improbable, en masse orders of termination could have been issued.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 27  

       Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the  matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the tainted from the  non-tainted candidates.

       We may, at this stage, notice that the following cases would fall in the  different categories which are enumerated hereinbelow:

(i)     Cases where the ’event’ has been investigated: (a)     Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, (1993) 1  SCC 154 at paragraphs 3 and 7. (b)     Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 165 at  paragraphs 12, 15 and 22. (c)     Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey, (1994) 5 SCC 663  at paragraph 4. (d)     Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 742 at  paragraph 4. (e)     Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146 at  paragraph 9. (f)     B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P., (2002) 5 SCC 533 at  paragraph 4.

(ii)    Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed or a  preliminary investigation was concluded: (a)     O. Chakradhar (supra)  (b)     Krishan Yadav (supra)  (c)     Hanuman Prasad (supra)  

(iii)   Cases where the selection was made but appointment was not  made: (a)     Dilbagh Singh (supra) at paragraph 3 (b)     Pritpal Singh v. State of Haryana, (1994) 5 SCC 695 (c)     Anand Kumar Pandey (supra) at paragraph 4. (d)     Hanuman Prasad (supra)  (e)     B. Ramanjini (supra) at paragraph 4. (iv)    Cases where the candidates were also ineligible and the  appointments were found to be contrary to law or rules:

(a)     Krishan Yadav (supra) (b)     Pramod Lahudas v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC  749 wherein appointments had been made without following  the selection procedure. (c)      O. Chakradhar (supra) wherein appointments had been  made without type-writing tests and other procedures of  selection having not been followed.

       It is now well-settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides  and not what can logically be deduced therefrom.  It is also well settled that  a ratio of case must be understood having regard to the fact situation  obtaining therein.  [See P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By LRs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd.  and Others (2004) 11 SCC 672] M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of  Kerala, (2005) 11 SCC 45 and Haryana State Coop. Land Development  Bank v. Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91]

       In Benny T.D. and Others v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and  Another [(1998) 5 SCC 269], this Court repelled a contention raised therein  that in view of the findings of the Public Inquiry Commission that there has  been tampering of marks in respect of several candidates and as such there  has been no fair and objective selection, public interest demanded annulment  of the entire selection.  This Court held that the same could not be done as  the same would tantamount to gross violation of principles of natural justice  which cannot be brushed aside on the ground that public interest demands  annulment of the selection.   

       Yet again in Onkar Lal Bajaj and Others v. Union of India and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 27  

Another[(2003) 2 SCC 673], this Court while dealing with a case of en  masse cancellation of the licences granted to the LPG Distributors as a result  whereof unequals were said to have been clubbed by reason of arbitrary  exercise of executive power,  the same was held to be impermissible stating:

"The solution by resorting to cancellation of all  was worse than the problem. Cure was worse than  the disease. Equal treatment to unequals is nothing  but inequality. To put both the categories \027  tainted and the rest \027 on a par is wholly  unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional being  violative of Article 14 of the Constitution\005"                  It was further held:

"The aforesaid observations would apply with  equal if not more force to DSBs if media exposure  that the allotments were made either to the high  political functionaries themselves or their near and  dear ones is correct, the authorities would not only  be justified in examining such cases but it would  be their duty to do so. Instead of fulfilling that duty  and obligation, the executive cannot unjustly resort  to cancellation of all the allotments en masse by  treating unequals as equals without even prima  facie examining any cases exposed by the  media\005"

       This Court further observed:

The expression "public interest" or "probity in  governance" cannot be put in a straitjacket. "Public  interest" takes into its fold several factors. There  cannot be any hard-and-fast rule to determine what  is public interest. The circumstances in each case  would determine whether government action was  taken in public interest or was taken to uphold  probity in governance.

The role model for governance and decision taken  thereof should manifest equity, fair play and  justice. The cardinal principle of governance in a  civilized society based on rule of law not only has  to base on transparency but must create an  impression that the decision-making was  motivated on the consideration of probity. The  Government has to rise above the nexus of vested  interests and nepotism and eschew window- dressing. The act of governance has to withstand  the test of judiciousness and impartiality and avoid  arbitrary or capricious actions. Therefore, the  principle of governance has to be tested on the  touchstone of justice, equity and fair play and if  the decision is not based on justice, equity and fair  play and has taken into consideration other  matters, though on the face of it, the decision may  look legitimate but as a matter of fact, the reasons  are not based on values but to achieve popular  accolade, that decision cannot be allowed to  operate."

       Yet again in Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U.,  Puthuvalnikathu and Another [(2003) 7 SCC 285], this Court observed:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 27  

"\005Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary  standard to cancel the entirety of the selections  despite the firm and positive information that  except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity  could be found with reference to others, is nothing  but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to  be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a  complete go-by to contextual considerations  throwing to the winds the principle of  proportionality in going farther than what was  strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In  short, the competent authority completely  misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and  unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire  selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary  even on the factual situation found too, and totally  in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at  stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to  be irrational."

       [See also Ashok Lenka v. Rishi Dikshit & Ors., 2006 (4) SCALE 519,  paragraphs 42-50]

       The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to be right in applying the  principle of mass cheating cases in the instant case.

       Contention of Mr. Dwivedi, as noticed hereinbefore, centers around  condemnation of selection and not of the candidate.  But, when the services  of the employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have  aided and abated corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probity in  governance or in public interest their services should be terminated; the  court must satisfy itself that conditions therefor exist.  The court while  setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process  was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled.  We,  however, do not agree with the submission of Mr. Dhavan that the decision  of the Commission was collegiate in nature as it is well known that one of  the members of the Commission was biased, other members could also be  influenced by him.  [See Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi  and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 722]

       In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious  consideration is as to whether due to misdeed of some candidates, honest  and meritorious candidates should also suffer.

       It is not in dispute that the State itself appointed a Screening  Committee by an order dated 20th July, 2004 in the following terms:  "Whereas during the period 1996-2001, a total  number of about 1681 selections involving 141  categories of employees were made by the PPSC.   And whereas an enquiry has been held  by the  Vigilance Bureau in these selections and a report  has been submitted by the Vigilance Bureau to the  Government.  The State Government has now to  take a view as to the action it may have to take  regarding all these selections made during the  years 1996-2001.  After detailed deliberation and  discussions in this regard with the concerned  Departments, Advocate General Punjab, Legal  Remembrancer and Vigilance Bureau, the  Government has decided to constitute a Committee  of Senior Officers to examine the report of the  Vigilance Bureau in the light of the records of  PPSC and sift the evidence in each case of  selection made during the tenure of Sh. Ravinder  Pal Singh Sidhu as Chairman, Punjab Public

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 27  

Service Commission and determine whether  irregularities or illegalities were committed in  making these selections.

The composition of the above Screening  Committee was:  1.      Shri D.S. Guru, IAS, Principal Secretary  Department of Health & Family Welfare,  Punjab. - Chairman.

2.      Legal Remembrancer, Punjab \026 Member.

3.      Sh. S.M. Sharma, IPS, Inspector General of  Police, (Vigilance) Punjab \026 Member  

4.      Sh. S.S. Rajput, IAS, Secretary to Govt. of  Punjab, Deptt. Of Personnel. \026 Member."

The subject reference before the Committee was:  

"A total number of 1680 selections involving 141  categories of employees were examined by the  Vigilance Bureau.  The Punjab Government  decided to constitute a Screening Committee to  examine the report of the Vigilance Bureau in the  light of the records of the Punjab Public Service  Commission (PPSC) and to shift the evidence in  each case of selection made during the tenure of  Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu as Chairman,  Punjab Public Service Commission and determine  whether irregularities or illegalities were  committed in making these selections."

       The Screening Committee found the following two selections as  vitiated:  "(i) Selection to the post of sub-Divisional  Engineer (Civil), PWD, B & R & sub-Divisional  Officer (Civil) in Panchayati Raj Department;

(ii) Selections of Lecturers Mechanical  Engineering for Government Polytechnics."

       The functions of the Screening Committee in terms of the order of  reference were as under:  

"(i) The Committee will examine the Vigilance  Bureau Reports and the records of PPSC regarding  selections made to posts in different departments  on the basis of recommendations of Punjab Public  Service Commission  during the tenure of Shri  Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu and give its findings as  to the attendant circumstances of the selections  effected.  

(ii) The Committee may examine any other issue  specially referred to it regarding the selections  made during the tenure of Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh  Sidhu.  

(iii) Original record from the Departments will be  obtained and submitted to the Committee by the  Vigilance Department.  The Committee will hold

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 27  

at least one meeting every week as per its  convenience and submit its final report within six  months."  

       We  are not unmindful of the controversy  that the said Committee did  not go into the question of illegality in the selection of the Civil Services  Examinations or Judicial Examinations.  It might or might not have; but we   are referring to the said report not only to place on record that such a  Committee was constituted inter alia for the purpose of implementing the  order of Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in CWP No. 77/02 but also  for the purpose that even according to the State sifting of evidence by an  independent body was possible.  The Committee, as noticed hereinbefore,  was furthermore required to determine the question as to whether illegalities  and irregularities of such a magnitude had been committed or not.  It further  appears from the report that the Screening Committee visited the office of  the Commission.  It noticed that the Vigilance  Bureau did not go into the  issue of role of experts and did not produce any concrete evidence before the  Committee in regard to any other illegality committed by the experts.  It  although noticed  the basis for the Vigilance Bureau to arrive at certain  inferences that the selection process had become tainted, but despite the  same went into various facts including similarity of marks given at the  interview despite the amendments made by the Commission vide a  resolution dated 14.3.1995 and other relevant factors.   

       The Committee opined:  

"The S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Patiala also stated  before the Committee that after the submission of  the report, no other additional evidence or piece of  information has come to their knowledge.  The  Committee is of the considered view that marks in  the interview cannot be given pro rata to the  academic qualifications and if this principle  is  adopted, it will hit at the very base of adjudging  the personality, general awareness, general  knowledge and  other traits in the personality of a  candidate by the Selection Board.  Although the  high marks awarded to some candidates in the  interview and low marks awarded to some others  are quite striking, vis-‘-vis their academic  performance, in a number of cases, especially  those placed by the Vigilance Bureau in the  ’tainted’ categories, yet the Committee is of the  considered view that in the absence of  concrete/conclusive evidence of any extraneous  considerations like corruption, favouritism,  nepotism, etc., the selections cannot per se be  described to be vitiated."

       Another factor which merits consideration is as to whether even if the  statements of approver and other witnesses are taken to be correct,  the  selection made in the year 1998 could be said to be so tainted so as to vitiate  the entire selection process. Jagaman Singh merely stated that only in 1999  Shri Sidhu upon taking him into confidence disclosed that he had some  surplus amount with him.  It is stated before us that he has not implicated  any candidate for the year 1998-99 by name.  Some of the statements made  by him are said to be with regard to the recovery part and not in regard to the  validity or otherwise of the examination and other selection processes.  It  was, therefore, necessary to establish that the examinations held in 1998  were also tainted.  Some evidence in that behalf should have been brought  on record to establish the necessary tint.

       It is not in dispute that in respect of the services where selections were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 27  

made on the basis of the interview, the same was conducted by the Chairman  and two other members.  On each subject one expert was also appointed.   We place on record that so far as the Judicial Officers are concerned the  expert was a sitting High Court Judge and, thus, it is not expected that any  irregularity far less illegality would be committed in the matter of allotment  of marks at the interview.  In any event, it was necessary to arrive at such a  finding.   

       We may notice Rule 17 (a) (iii) of the Rules framed by the  Commission which reads as under:  

"(iii) Where more than one  member constitute a  board for holding the interview, the senior most  Member shall preside assisted by the subject  Expert(s).  Each Member of the Board shall record  his evaluation marks on the award sheets  separately after general discussion with the  Expert(s).  After the interview each member shall  seal his award sheet in a separate cover and pass it  on to the Secretary who shall place all the award  covers in a master cover, seal it withy the seals of  the Members and keep it in his own safe custody."

       No breach of Rule 17 (a) (iii) as such has been pointed out either  before  the High Court or before us.  Thus, the possibility of the Chairman  and the Members of the Commission to deliberate on the performance of the  candidates with each other and general discussion with the expert which  might have led to grant to similar marks cannot be wholly ruled out.   Suspicion is no substitution of proof.  There may be some cases where such  marks had been given for extraneous considerations, but only because there  was such a possibility, the same by itself without analyzing more may not be  a ground for arriving at the conclusion that the entire selection process was  vitiated.  Apart from viva voce, other marks remained the same.  The  Officers had passed other departmental examinations and so far as  performance of their duties is concerned presumably there had been no  complaint.   

       We may, furthermore, at this stage take note of the fact that so far as  the entries in the registers are concerned the same are governed by Rule 8 of    the 1976 Rules, in terms whereof the following registers are required to be  maintained:  

REGISTER CLASS OF OFFICERS RULE Register A-1 Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars  Rule 8 (1) of the Punjab  Civil Service  (Executive Branch)  (Class-I) Rules, 1976 Register A-2  Temporary members of Class II  and members of Class III  services serving in connection  with the affairs of the State of  Punjab and holding Ministerial  appointments. Rule 8 (2) of the Punjab  Civil Service  (Executive Branch)  (Class-I) Rules, 1976 Register A-3  Excise and Taxation Officers,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 27  

Block Development and  Panchayat Officers and District  Development and Panchayat  Officers  Rule 8 (3) of the Punjab  Civil Service  (Executive Branch)  (Class-I) Rules, 1976 Register B  Officers accepted as a result of  the Main Competitive  Examination. Rule 8 (4) of the Punjab  Civil Service  (Executive Branch)  (Class-I) Rules, 1976 Register C  Officers and Officials serving  in connection with the State of  Punjab who are not covered by  any of the categories of officers  or officials herein before  mentioned. Rule 8 (5) of the Punjab  Civil Service  (Executive Branch)  (Class-I) Rules, 1976

       Different registers were, therefore, required to be maintained for  different categories of officers.  We have not been apprised that there had  been any violation in that behalf.

       Furthermore, a decision in undue haste was taken.  So far as the  nominated officers are concerned, whereas a note containing 90 pages was  sent to the Chief Secretary of Punjab on 22.5.2002, the services of all the  officers were terminated on the next day.   Apart from the materials which  have been relied on in the report, no further evidence was probably brought  in between 23.5.2002 and 24.8.2002 when the services of the Executive  Officers were terminated.   

       It is, thus, furthermore, beyond anybody’s comprehension as to why  action had to be taken in undue haste.

       We do not intend to suggest that in any emergency it was not  permissible but we have not been shown that any such emergent situation  existed.  It was in any event necessary for the State to show as to how the  records moved so as to satisfy the conscience of the court that there had been  proper and due application of mind on the part of the concerned authorities.   An action taken in undue haste may be held to be mala fide.  [See  Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others,  (2004) 2 SCC 65]

                We may now deal with the orders of termination of the services of the  Judicial Officers.  

       We may at the outset notice that no reason as to why copies of the  vigilance report could not have been made available to the learned advocates  appearing for the judicial officers.  At least, they could have been given  inspection thereof.   

       From the records produced before us it appears that   the Advocate  General, Punjab by a letter dated 23.5.2002 handed over 12 envelops which  are as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 27  

"Envelop No. 1- Report on Judicial Officers  (pages 1 to 4)  

Envelop No. 2 \026 Question Papers of PCS (J)  examination conducted in (a)     1999 (pages 1 to 10)  (b)     2000 (Pages 1 to 8)  (c)     2001 (pages 1 to 7).

Envelop No. 3- Answer Sheets of Maninder Singh  PCS(J)  

a)      English (Pages 1 to 16) b)      Punjabi (Pages 1 to 26) c)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 37) d)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 27) e)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 29)  

Envelop No. 4 \026 Answer Sheets of Amol Gill PCS  (J)  a)           English (Pages 1 to 10) b)      Punjabi (Pages 1 to 9) f)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 13) g)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 14) h)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 10)  

Envelop No. 5 \026 Answer Sheets of Ram Saran PCS  (J)  a)      English (Pages 1 to 22) b)      Punjabi (Pages 1 to 27) c)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 35) d)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 38) e)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 36)  Envelop No. 6 \026 Answer Sheets of Preetwinder  Singh PCS (J)          a)      English (Pages 1 to 13) b)           Punjabi (Pages 1 to 16) c)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 29) d)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 23) e)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 25)  

Envelop No. 7 \026 Answer Sheets of Mandeep Kaur  PCS (J)  a)      English (Pages 1 to 24) b)      Punjabi (Pages 1 to 23) c)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 26) d)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 39) e)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 34)  Envelop No. 8 \026 Answer Sheets of Monika Sethi  PCS (J)  a)      English (Pages 1 to 19) b)      Punjabi (Pages 1 to 17) c)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 30) d)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 40) e)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 33)  

Envelop No. 9 \026 Answer Sheets of Navdeep Singh  PCS (J)  a)      English (Pages 1 to 20) b)      Punjabi (Pages 1 to 26) c)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 28) d)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 32) e)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 29)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 27  

Envelop No. 10\026 Answer Sheets of Rajinder  Bansal PCS (J)  a)      English (Pages 1 to 17) b)      Punjabi (Pages 1 to 17) c)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 23) d)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 26) e)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 22)  

Envelop No. 11 \026 Answer Sheets of Anil Kumar  Jindal PCS (J)  a)      English (Pages 1 to 11) b)      Punjabi (Pages 1 to 10) c)      Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 14) d)      Civil Law II (Pages 1 to 17) e)      Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 15)  

Envelop No. 12 \026 Answer Sheets of Sapana  Singhal (Dental Demonstrator)  Pages 1 to 16."  

       No question paper or any other document as regards the candidates for  the year 1998 examination, therefore, was handed over by the State to the  High Court on that date.  

       The report of the first committee dated 30th May, 2002 is a short one.    The said report is based on the extracts of the statements made by some of  the persons recorded by the investigating agency and the photostat copies  of  the answer sheets of nine candidates who, amongst others, had been selected  and appointed to the PCS(Judicial) during the period from 1999 to 2001  along with the question papers for the relevant examinations.  

       The materials supplied to the Committee, having regard to the fact  that most of the officers named in the First Information Report were of 2001  batch, cannot be held to be sufficient so as to come to the conclusion that the  entire selection process for 1999 and 2000 was vitiated.  Despite the fact that  the  selection process for the year 1998 was not the subject matter of the  enquiry, recommendations had been made by the Committee for cancellation  of appointment of the candidates of 1998 batch also.  The Full Court   without any basis whatsoever recommended dismissal of all the Judicial  Officers.  Only when the Additional Secretary of the Government of Punjab  vide a letter dated 27.9.2002 which was received by the High Court on  28.9.2002, drew its attention in that behalf, another committee was  constituted by the then Acting Chief Justice on 10.10.2002  evidently, after  the said matter was discussed in the Full Court. Two of the five member  Committee were also the members of the first Committee.  The second  Committee again considered the statements of the approver and one other  witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as  also other documents placed before it and came to the opinion: (1)  Performance of most of the selected candidates was below average and the  marks awarded to them were disproportionate to the answers given by them.  (The aforementioned opinion  was made on the basis of some of the answer  sheets of some of the selected candidates and those who had not been  selected.) (2) The marks originally given to the candidates were scored off  and unjustifiably increased obviously with a view  to ensure their selection.  (3) Another feature which was noticed that the answer sheets of some of the  non-selected candidates were qualitatively better than some of those who  had been selected but they had been awarded lesser marks, presumably, with  a view to push them down.  

       The number of the candidates of 1998 batch was not that high so as to  render examination of each answer book of the candidates difficult.     Having regard to the fact that none of the candidates of 1998 batch had been  named in the First Information Report or by the witnesses, it was, to our  mind, obligatory on the part of the High Court to bestow its attention to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 27  

problem more closely.  Maintenance of purity of administration of justice so  as to uphold the independence of judiciary is indisputably the sole task of the  High Court.  However, it is important to maintain purity of administration of  justice both on the judicial side as also the administrative side.  Corruption  in the selection process and in any event illegality going to the root of the  matter, of course, would not be tolerated.  But then even applying the strict  standard in the case of the judicial officers, whereas applying liberal  standard in the case of others, at least certain basic norms were required to  be followed. For the said purpose, minimal requirements of the principles of  natural justice must be complied with.   We regret to note that judicial  officers had not been fairly treated by the High Court.  They deserved better  treatment.  An authority holding an enquiry of such a nature would  ordinarily carry out exercises to find out as to whether the selection process  was vitiated by fraud or such illegalities which would vitiate the entire  selection process.  The Committee was dealing with charges of aiding and  abetting corruption on the part of the judicial officers nay only some of them  and, thus, it was necessary for it to apply its mind more seriously.  The  members of the Committee were not reevaluating the answer scripts.  The  candidates were not before them.  Their abilities were not being tested.  The  learned members of the Committee should have asked unto themselves the  right question, mainly because the issue before them was different and  distinct from an ordinary departmental enquiry.  In any event, there was  absolutely no reason  why copies of the said reports could not have been  supplied to the appellants.  

       Before us the said reports have been placed.  We have allowed the  learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants to inspect them.   Some brief comments about the said reports had been made.  However, we  do not intend to delve deep into the matter, as we are of the opinion that the  actions taken on the basis of the said reports by the High Court were not  justified.

       We also fail to understand  as to why two senior Judges who had  headed the Committee should have been made part of the Bench.  It was not  a case where the doctrine of necessity was required to be invoked.  It may be  that the counsel appearing on behalf of the Judicial Officers did not object to  the learned Judges who were members of the Committee to hear the matter.

       There is no quarrel with the proposition that the allegation of bias may  be capable of waived.  [See Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and  Others, (1976) 3 SCC 585]  However, in this case, bias as regards the subject  matter on the part of the members of the Committee who heard the writ  petition is apparent on the face of the record.  Therein this Court was  considering a question as to whether a bias as regards a special matter would  invalidate proceedings.  What was in question therein was the justifiability  of the constitution of selection committee and as the Appellant therein had  voluntarily appeared before it and had taken a chance of having favourable  recommendation from it, he was not permitted to turn around and question  the validity of the constitution of the committee.

       In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another  [(1982) 2 SCC 463], the concession of the counsel recorded by the High  Court was incorrect.  But the Appellant was not permitted to go back from  the said concession, stating:

"So the Judges’ record is conclusive. Neither  lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it,  except before the Judge himself, but nowhere  else."

       In Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors.  etc. etc. [(1985) Suppl. SCR 657], this Court held:

"\005The basic principle underlying this rule is that  justice must not only be done but must also appear

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 27  

to be done and this rule has received wide  recognition in several decisions of this Court. It is  also important to note that this rule is not confined  to cases where judicial power stricto sensu is  exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases  where an independent mind has to be applied to  arrive at a fair and just decision between the rival  claims of parties. Justice is not the function of the  courts alone; it is also the duty of all those who are  expected to decide fairly between contending  parties. The strict standards applied to authorities  exercising judicial power are being increasingly  applied to administrative bodies, for it is vital to  the maintenance of the rule of law in a Welfare  State where the jurisdiction of administrative  bodies is increasing at a rapid pace that the  instrumentalities of the State should discharge their  functions in a fair and just manner\005"

       The manner in which the proceedings were conducted in the High  Court leaves much to be desired.  

       The writ petitioners, thus, might have waived their right to raise a  contention as regard bias  on the part of the Hon’ble Judges but the same  would not mean that this Court would ignore such a vital fact.  It was clearly  a case where the Hon’ble Judges should have recused themselves from  hearing the matter.  It was for them to remind themselves that justice is not  only done but manifestly seen to be done.  [See   Centre for Public Interest  Litigation and Another v. Union of India and another, (2005) 8 SCC 202]

       In Pinochet, [(1999) 1 All ER 577] Lord Browne Wilkinson opined:   "The question then arises whether in non-financial  litigation, anything other than a financial or  proprietary interest in the outcome is sufficient  automatically to disqualify a man from sitting as  judge in the cause\005. My Lords, in my judgment,  although the cases have all dealt with automatic  disqualification on the grounds of pecuniary  interest, there is no good reason in principles for so  limiting automatic disqualification.  The rationale  of the whole rule is that man cannot be judge in his  own cause."

       It was further opined:  

"One of the cornerstones of our legal system is the  impartiality of the tribunals by which justice is  administered.  In civil litigation the guiding  principle is that no one may be a judge in his own  cause: nemo debt esse judex in propria causa\005 the  nature of the interest is such that public confidence  in the administration of justice requires that the  judge must withdraw from the case or, of he fails  to disclose his interest and sits in judgment upon it,  the decision cannot stand.  It is no answer for the  judge to say that he is in fact impartial and that he  will abide by his judicial oath."

It was also stated:  

"However, I am of the opinion that there could be  cases where the interest of the judge in the subject  matter of the proceedings arising from his strong  commitment to some cause or belief or his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 27  

association  with a person or body involved in the  proceedings could shake public confidence in the  administration of justice as much as shareholding  in a public company involved in litigation."

       [See also AWG Group Limited v. Morrison and Anr., 2006 (1) All ER  967]

       Pinochet (supra) applies in all force to the fact of the case.

       The aforementioned principles have been accepted and followed by  this Court in  Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant [  (2001) 1 SCC 182] in the following terms:

"Recently however, the English Courts have  sounded a different note, though may not be  substantial but the automatic disqualification  theory rule stands to some extent diluted. The  affirmation of this dilution however is dependent  upon the facts and circumstances of the matter in  issue. The House of Lords in the case of R. v. Bow  Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p  Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2)observed: "\005 In civil litigation the matters in issue will  normally have an economic impact; therefore a  Judge is automatically disqualified if he stands to  make a financial gain as a consequence of his own  decision of the case. But if, as in the present case,  the matter at issue does not relate to money or  economic advantage but is concerned with the  promotion of the cause, the rationale disqualifying  a Judge applies just as much if the Judge’s  decision will lead to the promotion of a cause in  which the Judge is involved together with one of  the parties." 31. Lord Brown-Wilkinson at p.136 of the report  stated:  "It is important not to overstate what is being  decided. It was suggested in argument that a  decision setting aside the order of 25-11-1998  would lead to a position where Judges would be  unable to sit on cases involving charities in whose  work they are involved. It is suggested that,  because of such involvement, a Judge would be  disqualified. That is not correct. The facts of this  present case are exceptional. The critical elements  are (1) that A.I. was a party to the appeal; (2) that  A.I. was joined in order to argue for a particular  result; (3) the Judge was a director of a charity  closely allied to A.I. and sharing, in this respect,  A.I.’s objects. Only in cases where a Judge is  taking an active role as trustee or director of a  charity which is closely allied to and acting with a  party to the litigation should a Judge normally be  concerned either to recuse himself or disclose the  position to the parties. However, there may well be  other exceptional cases in which the Judge would  be well advised to disclose a possible interest." 32. Lord Hutton also in Pinochet case observed: "There could be cases where the interest of the  Judge in the subject-matter of the proceedings  arising from his strong commitment to some cause  or belief or his association with a person or body  involved in the proceedings could shake public

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 27  

confidence in the administration of justice as much  as a shareholding (which might be small) in a  public company involved in the litigation."

[See also Rupa Hurra V. Ashok Hurra,  (2002) 4 SCC 388  and Krishan  Yadav (supra)]

       It is not necessary for us, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to  give our final views as regard the current rein in the precedent, i.e., from  likelihood of bias to ’real danger of bias’ as was observed in M.P. Special  Police Establishment v. State of M.P. [(2004) 8 SCC 788] but we may only  observe that if the principles of bias which have been highlighted  by Mr.  Rao for attacking the conduct of Mr. Sindhu as a Constitutional functionary  are correct, there is no reason as to why the same principles would not apply  to the case of judicial officers.  The apprehension in the mind of judicial  officers that inferences had been drawn on the basis of non-existent fact  cannot be ruled out.  It was in the aforementioned premise, the officers  should have at least been given an opportunity to have a look to the reports  on the basis whereof they had been categorized as tainted officers.  We fail  to understand if ultimately in the opinion of the High Court, the Judicial  Offices were found to be entitled to look the said report, why the copies  thereof were not made available to them or at least why inspection thereof  was not given at an appropriate time so as to enable them to make their  submissions. Curiously enough only when after the oral submissions were  over and written submissions have been filed, although the writ petition  belonging to other categories of services were being heard, the arguments  advanced on behalf of the Judicial Officers were directed  to be closed and  only on the next date when the counsel had no occasion  to make comments  upon the reports, the same were read out in the Court and allowed to be  inspected by the counsel.  It may be that the Superior Judiciary always make  endeavours to deal with the judicial officers in all seriousness it deserves;  but then such harsh punishments may be meted out only when there are  sufficient materials on record so as to enable it to satisfy itself upon adopting  a fair procedure.  We have no hesitation to observe that the Judicial Officers  were unfairly treated by the High Court.     

       The High Court was probably enthralled by the media reports that two  of the wards of its sitting Judges obtained appointment wrongly.  It is,  however, stated at the Bar that they were toppers of the Batch and in the  First Information Reports, their names had not been mentioned.  Only  because wards of its sitting Judges obtained employment, the same by itself  would not give rise to a presumption that everything was not well in the  selection making process.

       We, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,  are of the opinion that it is necessary to direct consideration of the matters  afresh.  We have not been apprised whether in the criminal cases any further  material had been gathered so as to implicate the appellants before us.   

       We were, however, told that some new appointments have been made,  the effect whereof, would certainly be the subject to the decision of this case.  We, however, do not intend to set aside the said appointments at this stage.   We also do not intend to disturb the status quo.

       We must, however, express our satisfaction that no candidate for the  year 2001 has been appointed.  It is one thing to say that having regard to the  nature of selection process, no person is appointed from the select list as no  person has right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select  list, but, in our opinion, a different standard must be adopted for terminating  the services of the officers who had completed about three years of service.   Some of them, as noticed hereinbefore, passed departmental tests.  Some  have been given higher responsibilities.  They had completed the period of  probation and some were nearing the completion thereof.  They presumably  had been working to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 27  

       The impugned judgment as also the orders of the State Government  and the High Court are, thus, liable to be set aside and directions are issued.   Although the impugned judgments cannot be sustained, we are of the  opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the matters are  remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matters afresh.  However,  with a view to segregate between the tainted with non-tainted and that in the  interest of justice the High Court should be requested to constitute two  independent scrutiny committees \026 one relating to the executive officers and  the other relating to the judicial officers.

       We would, furthermore, request the High Court to consider the  desirability of delineating the area which would  fall for consideration by  such Committees within a time frame.  Copies of such reports of the  Committees shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners  and/or at least they should be given inspection thereof.  The parties shall be  given opportunity to inspect any document including the answer sheets etc.  if an application, in that behalf is filed.  Such inspection shall, however, be  permitted to be made only in presence of an officer of the court.   The  Appellants shall be given two weeks time only for submitting their  objections to such reports and their comments, if any, on any material  whereupon the High Court places reliance from the date of supply of copies  or inspection is given. Having regard to the fact that the appellants are out of  job for a long time, we would request the High Court to consider the  desirability disposing of the matter as expeditious as possible and preferably  within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this  order.  Before parting with the case, however, we may observe that it is  expected that the State having regard to the magnitude of the matter shall  leave no stone unturned to bring the guilty to book.  It is the duty of the State  to unearth the scam and spare no officer howsoever high he may be.  We  expect the State to make a thorough investigation into the matter. These  appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent and with the directions and  observations made hereinbefore.

       In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no  order as to costs.