REPORTABLE

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

       ADVISORY JURISDICTION

Reference No. 1/2006

U/A 317 (I) of the Constitution of India, CPSC

O P I N I O N

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI

Under Clause (1)  of  Article  317,  the President of  India  

referred  the  matter  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  India  for  an  

inquiry  and  report  as  to  whether  Shri  Ashok  Darbari,  

Chairman of the Chattisgarh Public Service Commission ought  

to be removed from the office of Chairman of the Commission  

on  the  grounds  of  misbehaviour.   This  was  done  by  the

President pursuant to the request made by the Governor of  

Chattisgarh  on  24.2.2006  containing  certain  allegations  of  

misbehaviour  against  the  Chairman  of  the  Public  Service  

Commission.  Notice was given to the Chairman of the Public  

Service Commission,  Attorney General  of  India and also the  

Advocate General of the State of Chattisgarh.  On behalf of the  

State, certain specific allegations have been made.  The State  

proposed to adduce evidence in support of the allegations.  20  

witnesses were examined in support of the allegations and 3  

witnesses were examined in support of the Chairman of the  

Public  Service  Commission.    Several  documents  were  also  

produced.

2. We heard the Shri Amarendra Sharan, ASG, Additional  

Advocate General of the State of Chattisgarh and also learned  

Senior  Counsel  Shri  S.K.  Gambhir  for  the  Chattisgarh  PSC  

and  also  Shri  Vivek  K.  Tankha,  learned  senior  Counsel  on  

behalf of Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman, PSC.

2

3. The State  PSC is  constituted  under  Article  315 of  the  

Constitution.   Constitutional  makers  decided  to  have  an  

independent body to recruit civil servants by open competition  

and with that object, an independent and impartial body was  

proposed to be constituted as the Public Service Commission.  

With a view to uphold the dignity and independence of  the  

body, salaries, allowance and pension payable to the members  

of  the  staff  of  the  Commission  are  to  be  charged  on  the  

Consolidated  Fund  of  the  State  and  the  Chairman  of  the  

Public Service Commission is removable only by following the  

procedure laid down under the Constitution of India.  Under  

sub-clause (1) of Article 317, the Chairman or any member of  

the Public Service Commission shall only be removed from his  

office by order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour  

after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the  

President,  has,  on  inquiry  held  in  accordance  with  the  

procedure prescribed in that behalf  under Article 145, on a  

report that the Chairman or such other member, ought to be  

removed from the office.   Article 317 of the Constitution does  

3

not  define  ‘misbehaviour’  or  enumerate  what  acts  would  

constitute ‘misbehaviour’.  It is only after a fact finding inquiry  

is held, it could be said whether the alleged acts committed by  

the Chairman amount to ‘misbehaviour’.  The Chairman of the  

Public  Service  Commission  is  expected  to  show  absolute  

integrity and impartiality in exercising the powers and duties  

as Chairman.  His actions shall be transparent and he shall  

discharge his functions with utmost sincerity and integrity.  If  

there is any failure on his part, or he commits any act which is  

not befitting the honour and prestige as a Chairman of the  

Public Service Commission, it would amount to misbehaviour  

as contemplated under the Constitution.  If it is proved that he  

has shown any favour to the candidate during the selection  

process, that would certainly be an act of misbehaviour.  The  

charges levelled against  the Chairman of  the Public  Service  

Commission  Shri  Ashok  Darbari  are  to  be  viewed  in  this  

background.

4

4. It is alleged that ever since Shri Ashok Darbari had been  

appointed,  there  were  complaints  in  respect  of  his  working  

ability  and  impartiality  as  Chairman  of  the  Public  Service  

Commission.   In  this  case,  four  specific  charges  have  been  

alleged against  Shri  Ashok Darbari.   We will  consider  each  

charge allegedly made against him.

5. The first charge made against him is that he committed  

grave  irregularities  and  mismanagement  in  conducting  the  

preliminary examination conducted by the Chattisgarh Public  

Service Commission for the year 2005.  To prove this charge,  

PW1, PW 10, PW 16, PW 17, PW 18, PW 19, PW 20 and RW 1  

were examined.  It may be noticed that for the conduct of the  

examination, there is Controller of Examinations in the Public  

Service  Commission.   The  Chairman  along  with  other  

members  of  the  Commission  decide  the  policies  regarding  

priorities  and  dates  of  examination.   The  main  complaint  

regarding the Preliminary Civil Examination held in 2005 was  

that for General Studies paper, there was a mixing up of model  

5

answer keys which prompted the leader of a political party to  

make a complaint to the Chief Minister.  RW 2 who was the  

Secretary to the Governor deposed that the answer keys and  

the  questions  got  mixed  up  due  to  computer  error.   The  

witnesses  examined  did  not  depose  that  there  was  any  

negligence on the part of the Chairman of the Public Service  

Commission.   A  series  of  individual  complaints  have  been  

referred to but in these matters, the Chairman of the Public  

Service Commission was not found responsible.  The Deputy  

Controller of Examinations was examined as PW 10.  He was  

specifically asked whether Mr. Ashok Darbari was responsible  

for the irregularities, if any and he could not give a satisfactory  

answer to these questions.  It has come in evidence that on  

the basis of irregularities, a departmental inquiry was initiated  

by the then Controller of Examinations and that PW 10 was a  

witness  in  the  departmental  inquiry  and  he  gave  evidence  

against the then Controller of Examinations.   All these facts  

would only indicate that the Chairman of the Public Service  

Commission was unnecessarily dragged on to this controversy  

6

and in view of the evidence adduced, it  is  clear that if  any  

irregularities  had  taken  place  in  the  conduct  of  the  

examination, it was due to the fault of some of the officers of  

the Public Service Commission and not by Shri Ashok Darbari,  

Chairman of the Public Service Commission.

6. The  second  charge  against  Shri  Ashok  Darbari,  

Chairman of the Public Service Commission was that he had  

unauthorisedly misused the Government vehicles, drivers and  

orderlies which were provided to him during his officiation in  

the  post  of  Director  General  of  Police  and  he  had  not  

surrendered his vehicles or discharged the drivers or orderlies  

from  service,  after  his  appointment  on  21.10.2004  as  the  

Chairman  of  the  Public  Service  Commission.   Prior  to  the  

appointment of  Shri  Ashok Darbari  as the Chairman of the  

Public Service Commission, he was Director General of Police  

of  the  State  of  Chattisgarh.   Shri  Ashok  Darbari  who  was  

examined as RW 1 stated that the Chief Minister required him  

to join as Chairman of the Public Service Commission.  Till  

7

July  2004,  Shri  Ashok  Darbari  was  continuing  as  DGP  of  

Chattisgarh.   A  person  who  was  much  junior  to  him  was  

proposed  to  be  appointed  as  DGP  of  the  State.   This  was  

approved by the Central Ministry of Home Affairs and at that  

time the Chief Minister required him to join as the Chairman  

of the Public Service Commission.  As Shri Ashok Darbari had  

been the Director  General  of  Police  of  the  State  which was  

affected by Naxalites, he required additional police protection  

and  the  security  cover  included  security  vehicles,  a  motor  

cycle  and  some  staff  members  in  the  form  of  guards  and  

orderlies.  RW 1 deposed that the Chief Minister agreed to give  

the security cover and it was under these circumstances that  

some of the vehicles were being used by him.  The fact that  

these  vehicles  were  being  used  must  have  been  with  the  

consent of the departmental authorities.  They could have very  

well withdrawn  the security arrangements given to Shri Ashok  

Darbari.   There  is  no  case  that  he  willfully  disobeyed  any  

orders.   From the allegations made against  Shri  Darbari,  it  

could only be assumed that he being ex-DGP of the Naxalite  

8

affected  State,  was  given  some  additional  security  while  

discharging his duties as the Chairman of the Public Service  

Commission.   Hence,  we  are  unable  to  find  any  proved  

misbehaviour and impropriety on his part.

7. The third allegation made against Shri Ashok Darbari is  

that he claimed house rent allowance not admissible to him  

under  law.   It  was contended that  as  the  Chairman of  the  

Public Service Commission, he was entitled to the perquisites  

of  a Grade I  Officer of the State Government and the main  

allegation was that Shri Ashok Darbari was staying in a police  

mess and yet he was drawing HRA which was not admissible  

to  him.   Shri  Ashok  Darbari  has  explained  that  after  his  

assumption of office, he requested the Chief Secretary to allot  

the  official  residence  which  was  formerly  occupied  by  his  

predecessor-in-office but Mr. Ashok Darbari was not allotted  

the building and he had no other option but to continue to  

occupy a room in the “Police Club” which was the safe place  

available to him and all retired IPS Officers are entitled to use  

9

the  mess  during  their  lifetime.  He  also  received  

communication from the department that he was entitled to  

HRA @ 15% as per the rules.  To explain the position further,  

the  Accountant  General  of  the  State  of  Chattisgarh  was  

examined as RW 3 and he deposed that Rule 14 and 18 did  

not  say  anything  about  house  rent  allowance  and  Rule  19  

deals  with  House  Rent  Allowance  and  under  Rule  2(f)  

Chairman  is  governed  by  Rule  19  and  in  view  of  Rule  19  

coupled  with  Rule  2  (f),  the  HRA  was  applicable  to  the  

Chairman  as  per  the  rules  issued  by  the  Chattisgarh  

Government and he also deposed that on 10.4.2006, all  the  

doubts regarding the admissibility of allowance stood clarified  

and  there  was  nothing  irregular  in  Shri  Ashok  Darbari  

claiming the house rent allowance.  We do not find any basis  

for  the  allegation  made  against  the  Chairman,  Chattisgarh  

Public Service Commission.  On appointment as Chairman of  

Public Service Commission, the State Government should have  

provided  him  official  quarters  befitting  the  honour  and  

respectability of the office which he occupied.  The State had  

1 0

not  provided  any  such  building  at  the  disposal  of  the  

Chairman  and  he  had  to  stay  in  the  police  mess  almost  

throughout his career as the Chairman of the Public Service  

Commission.  It is quite surprising that the Chairman, Public  

Service Commission was forced to occupy the police mess and  

had to suffer these type of allegations that he had drawn HRA  

for the period he had stayed in the police mess.

8. The fourth allegation made against Shri Ashok Darbari is  

that in discharging his official functions as the Chairman of  

the  Public  Service  Commission,  he  acted  in  a  dictatorial  

manner and that his style of functioning was objectionable.  

The  Chairman  of  the  Public  Service  Commission  as  RW 1  

deposed that when he took over as Chairman of  the Public  

Service Commission, there were four other members and 50%  

of them did not belong to Government service having 10 years  

experience  as  provided  for  under  proviso  1  of  clause  (1)  of  

Article 316 of the Constitution.  Many of them were appointed  

on account of their political background.  He further deposed  

1 1

that  all  these  members  wanted  to  know  the  confidential  

matters like where the question papers were printed and who  

sets the question papers, etc.  Some of the members gave a list  

of  persons who should  be  appointed as the  question  paper  

setters.  Though the meetings of the committees were on fixed  

schedules, these members used to come very late.  It is alleged  

that these members did not like the Chairman taking strict  

actions regarding the conduct of the examination and other  

official functions.  So in respect of the charge alleged that Shri  

Ashok Darbari acted in a dictatorial manner, the details are  

not divulged and no evidence has been adduced to show in  

what manner Shri Ashok Darbari acted in dictatorial manner.  

As regards the conduct of the examination, some problem had  

arisen and they cannot be attributed to Shri Ashok Darbari  

and the Controller of Examinations and some other officials  

were  responsible  for  committing  such  irregularities.   The  

postponement of examination was also decided upon by the  

Commission  and  other  members  also  participated  in  that  

meeting.  RW 1 was extensively cross-examined by the learned  

1 2

Counsel for the State but nothing has been brought out in his  

evidence as to how he had acted in a dictatorial manner.  We  

are unable to find any merits in this allegation.  We hold that  

Shri Ashok Darbari has not exhibited any improper behaviour  

and all the charges levelled against him are baseless and there  

is not even prima facie proof of misbehaviour on the part of  

Shri  Ashok  Darbari,  Chairman  of  the  Public  Service  

Commission.

9. In  our  opinion,  there  is  no  evidence  of  proved  

misbehaviour against Shri Ashok Darbari. Hence, reference is  

answered in negative and it  is deemed that he should have  

continued  in  his  office  till  the  time  his  appointment  might  

ordinarily had come to an end.  As a result, he should be given  

all pecuniary benefits which would have been due to him but  

for  the  suspension.   The  reference  stands  answered  

accordingly.

………………………………….CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

1 3

……………………………………J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

…………………………………..J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

New Delhi July 08, 2009.

1 4