Supreme Court: The present matter pertained to a Presidential reference under Article 317(1) vis-a-vis a member (Respondent) of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) facing allegations of misbehaviour, especially related to leakage of the question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by the APPSC on 26/27-8-2022; and whether the Respondent ought to be removed from APPSC on the grounds of the alleged misbehaviour.
The Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari* and Aravind Kumar, JJ., exercising the Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction, found that the 6 charges against the Respondent made in the reference could not be proved; the charges as alleged were not based on specific allegations against the Respondent in her individual or official capacity. Therefore, the Court recommended that her suspension be revoked forthwith, and that she would be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits. The Court stated that when there is no evidence linking the present Respondent to the leakage of the question paper of the Mains Examination, summarily holding her responsible and seeking to remove her from office on the pretext of not maintaining confidentiality in the work of the Commission, it would further erode the roots of the Constitutional intent of Article 317 to protect the Members of the Public Service Commission from political pressure.
Background:
The Respondent was appointed as a member of APPSC on 12-08-2021 under Article 316(1) of the Constitution and assumed charge on 13-08-2021.
On 26-08-2022 and 27-08-2022, the APPSC conducted the Mains Examination for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (“Mains Examination”). On 28-08-2022, one of the candidates for the said examination, submitted a formal complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, Itanagar, alleging that some questions of the paper for the Mains Examination were leaked in advance by APPSC in conspiracy with certain coaching institutes, which were accessible to some candidates including him beforehand. Therefore, an FIR was requested by the complainant. The complainant further requested a stay of the declaration of results until a thorough and fair enquiry has been conducted.
APPSC cancelled the Preliminary and Mains Examination on 20-09-2022, and the matter was transferred to the Special Investigation Cell (Vigilance) (“SIC (Vigilance)”) for further inquiry. Sections 120-B, 420, 406, 407, and 409 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were invoked. Eventually, the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guwahati took over the investigation.
To address the magnitude of the allegations, during pendency of the criminal proceedings, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 21-09-2022 constituted a 3-member High-level Inquiry Committee (“Inquiry Committee”) to probe into the irregularities in the Mains Examination and no specific term of reference was formulated in respect of the actions of the Chairman or Members of the APPSC. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 06-10-2022, pointing out lapses in Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) regarding maintaining the secrecy of the question papers for the Mains Examination and other lacunae, and concluded that the SOP and the APPSC Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017 (“2017 Guidelines”) were not followed by the APPSC.
On 14-10-2022, the Chairman of the APPSC resigned on moral grounds. The State Government after the receipt of the inquiry report deliberated on the possible actions and sought legal opinion of the Advocate General of the State, who opined to invoke Article 317(1) of the Constitution. Governor of Arunachal Pradesh placed the matter before the President of India for making reference under Article 317(1) to the Supreme Court for removal of the four members of the APPSC.
In the meanwhile, three members, tendered their resignations. Hence, the Respondent herein was the only remaining member of the APPSC. Thereafter, on 02-12-2022, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh requested the President of India to make a reference to the Supreme Court for initiating proceedings under Article 317(1) for removal of the Respondent.
The CBI filed a chargesheet on 08-12-2022 and supplementary chargesheets on 30-01-2023 and 28-03-2023, wherein the Respondent was not named as an accused. The investigation revealed that the Deputy Secretary-cum-Deputy Controller of Examinations (DCoE), APPSC was primarily responsible for the leakage of the Mains Examination paper.
On 18-04-2023, the President of India made a reference under Article 317(1) for removal of the Respondent on six charges. After the reference, the Respondent was placed under suspension on 15-06-2023 by order of the Governor of the State in accordance with Article 317(2) of the Constitution.
‘Misbehaviour’ in the context of Article 317:
Perusing Article 317 of the Constitution, the Court noted that the provision specifies that Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission shall only be removed by an order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour. The said misbehaviour may be proved by inquiry before the Supreme Court of India following the procedure prescribed in Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed under Article 145(1)(j) of the Constitution and the report in this regard shall be submitted to the President of India.
Article 317(4) of the Constitution specifies an example of misbehaviour that if the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission becomes in any way concerned or interested in any contract of agreement made on behalf of the Government of India or the Government of a State or participates in any way in profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom. The Court pointed out that in addition to the above, what may be included within the expression of ‘misbehaviour’ needs to be examined in the present context.
The Court further pointed out that the members of the Public Service Commission can only be removed strictly by complying the rigour of Article 317 of the Constitution and not through any regular departmental inquiry, thereby acting as a qualification on the doctrine of pleasure that is exercised by the President regarding various constitutional posts.
Elaborating upon what constitutes ‘misbehaviour’ within the contours of Article 317, the Court referred to Reference Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, (2009) 8 SCC 41, wherein it was held that there is no definition of ‘misbehaviour’ in Article 317 and it is only after a fact-finding inquiry that it can be decided whether the alleged act would amount to ‘misbehaviour’. Furthermore, in Mehar Singh Saini, In re, (2010) 13 SCC 586, the Court discussed the difference between ‘misbehaviour’, ‘misconduct’ and ‘proved misbehaviour’ and held that the word ‘misbehaviour’ must be given wide import and cannot be restrictively interpreted. The Court pointed out that in the context of ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 124 of the Constitution, the Court laid down the scope and meaning of the word ‘misbehaviour’ in Article 124(4) in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457.
Thus, the Court in the present reference observed that, on numerous occasions the Supreme Court had been called upon to interpret the meaning of the word ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317 of the Constitution. Article 317 does not define the term ‘misbehaviour’. Thus, it must be given a wider import; it cannot be narrowly construed and is required to be understood in the context of the alleged misbehaviour complained of, the office in question and the standards required to be maintained by a person as a necessary corollary of holding such office. It is different from the term ‘proved misbehaviour’ under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
The Court observed that misbehaviour is also different from misconduct. The Court pointed out that when called upon under Article 317, the Supreme Court must embark on a fact-finding inquiry to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the allegations against the Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission would amount to misbehaviour. Misbehaviour has been interpreted to have a larger ambit than misconduct at a somewhat normative level — every misconduct might be considered a misbehaviour but not every misbehaviour amounts to misconduct, since even acts which bring disrepute to the office of the Public Service Commission have been interpreted in the past by the Court to be misbehaviour.
Furthermore, the language used in Article 317, if given a plain reading, makes it clear that removal and suspension of a member of a Public Service Commission is in personam and not of the entire Public Service Commission or its members as a collective entity.
For proving ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317, it is generally necessary to demonstrate with cogent material that the conduct complained of, and charges formulated are attributable to the individual in question.
Court’s Assessment of the charges against the Respondent:
Analysing the Inquiry Report as submitted in the present case in its entirety, the Court did not find any specific act or omission of any Member of APPSC which has been pointed out in the report. Therefore, it was observed that either in terms of the reference, or in reply to those terms of reference, the Inquiry Committee has not made any allegations indicating illegality or any act or omission on the Respondent in her individual official capacity purportedly constituting her misbehaviour.
Considering the 6 charges levelled against the Respondent in the Presidential Reference, the Court noted the following:
Considering Charge related to leakage of question papers, nothing was brought on record to substantiate the Respondent’s alleged connivance in leakage of the question papers and how far she may be held responsible for not preventing it and ensuring confidentiality in the working of the APPSC. The entire report did not impute any allegation or personal indictment in the form of any act or omission by the Respondent, which could indicate her negligence in fulfilling her duties as a member of the APPSC.
On the question of charge related to previous examinations conducted by the APPSC since 2017 and their possible leakage on the basis of complaints raised in that regard, and not bringing changes in the relevant guidelines to address such issues, the Court pointed out that there was no specific allegation against the Respondent that after her joining, she was given a particular duty which required her to carry out such changes in the guidelines, which she has failed to carry out.
On the question of charges on responsibility of the APPSC to take remedial action by bringing relevant changes in the examination guidelines and allegation of not finalizing the draft ‘Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2022, the Court pointed out that at the relevant point of time, the new guidelines were pending because of a collective decision of the Commission. In this regard, nothing was substantiated by the departmental witnesses in their testimony before the Court to prove that there was any deliberate act on the part of the Respondent in preventing the initiation of new guidelines or bringing changes in the policy.
On charges related to the collective responsibility of the Respondent along with the Chairman and the Members of the APPSC to ensure confidentiality in functioning of the Commission, the Court pointed out that failure in discharge of individual duties by the Respondent has not been proved and such being the case, attributing the institutional failure in bringing about reforms in examination process and to initiate the new guidelines to her solely appears to be speculative and untenable. The Court further added that the Inquiry Committee’s report and the evidence adduced did not indicate any individual responsibility or fault on the part of the Respondent, the Chairman, or any other APPSC member, much less any collective responsibility. “Merely because responsibility was given to the Respondent to look into legal matters, would not make her responsible for every act conducted by the APPSC”.
On charges related to APPSC’s decision to keep in abeyance its own orders related to punishment awarded to candidates found using unfair means and duty of Respondent to advise APPSC against such abeyance, the Court opined that passing an order by the Commission to keep the punishment in abeyance is a discharge of quasi-judicial function. Even a wrong decision taken bona-fide by the Commission in discharge of quasi-judicial function would not in any manner fall within the definition of ‘misbehaviour’. In respect of any collective decision of the Commission, the act of the Respondent not advising individually in a particular manner contrary to the said decision would not be termed even a lapse on her part.
The Court pointed out that members of the APPSC who were allegedly collectively found involved in the paper leak, later resigned and got assignment of new post by the State, then it is a question to ponder upon, which ought to be looked into by the State under Article 319(d) of the Constitution. “In our view, if the members were collectively involved, the act of the State Government bequeathing responsibility upon such members, giving them assignment of posts having responsibilities, clearly goes to indicate that there was nothing against the Chairman or any Member of the Commission showing their indictment in a personal capacity of committing any act or omission which may prove misbehaviour on their part”. Therefore, the Court opined that the act of the State requesting the President to initiate the removal of the Respondent is arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory.
Conclusion:
After appreciation of evidence, the Court found that from the very inception, from the report of the Inquiry Committee, no specific allegation against the Respondent qua any of the six charges was levelled. Chapter 7 of the Inquiry report, which forms the very basis of the present reference, merely makes some suggestions for improvement in the functioning of the APPSC and to adopt best practices, but it makes no adverse comment or personal indictment against the Respondent.
The Court concluded that State dealt with the matter with a prejudice that the Members of the APPSC were responsible for the paper leakage without sufficient material or evidence to reach such a conclusion.
The actions alleged against the Respondent do not meet the threshold of ‘misbehaviour’, rather, they do not even meet the threshold of ‘lapse’ which has a lower threshold.
the working of the APPSC was alleged to have been marred with irregularities from as far back as in 2017 and it exemplified institutional lethargy in bringing about new guidelines for conduct of examination, but the Respondent joined the Commission as a Member in 2021, and the incident of paper leakage occurred in 2022. The Respondent as a member was required to be exemplary in her conduct, but she could not have been expected to right all wrongs which had been perpetrated in the APPSC prior to her joining or to single-handedly ensure that new guidelines are framed and the entire examination process is reformed.
Therefore, the Court established that the charges against the Respondent were not proven and recommended that her suspension be revoked.
[In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, REF. U/A 317(1) NO. 1 OF 2023, decided on 28-8-2025]
*Judgment by Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. R Venkatramani, AGI Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr.Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Cinghal, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Manish Goshwami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Mr. Mayan Prasad, Adv. Ms. Anshula Grover, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Japneet Kaurn, Adv. Ms. Vriti Gujarat, Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Manu Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Sujana Bardhan, Adv. Mr. Ananyo Roy, Adv.
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
