REFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN RESPECT OF SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, CHAIRMAN, PB. PUBLIC SERVICE COMversus.

          REFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF                             A
                        CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
         IN RESPECT OF SHRI RA VINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU,
         CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

                                   JANUARY 13, 2003
                                                                                         B
         (S. RAJENDRA BABU, ARUN KUMAR AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]


              Constitution of India, I950; Articles 3I6 and 317:

               Reference made by President ofIndia-Suspension and removal offormer       C
         Chairman, State Public Service Commission on the ground ofgrave misconduct
         and malpractices-Examination of the matter-Held, since the incumbent
---<,.   ceased to hold the ojj/ce of the Chairman by reason of his tenure coming to
         an end, question ofremoving him from the ojj/ce would not arise-Continuance
         ofproceeding/Inquiry in the matter would therefore be futile-Hence Reference    D
         infructuous.

               President of India made a Reference to this Court for examination
         of allegation of grave misconduct and malpractices against former
         Chairman of Punjab State Public Service Commission for his suspension
         and removal from the Office.                                                    E
               It was submitted by the Incumbent that he had tendered his
         resignation from the office of Chairman of the Commission in compliance
         with the provisions under Article 316(2) of the Constitution and to that
         effect an affidavit was also filed by him. Resignation became operative
         and effective upon its receipt by the Governor.                                 F
              On behalf of Union, it was submitted that since resignation tendered
         by the incumbent was not accepted by the Governor, it was not effective.

              On behalf of State, it was submitted that since Chairman of the State
         Service Commission was entitled to certain retiral benefits, the relationship   G
         of master and servant continued, it becomes necessary to examine the
>;•      matter of his removal; and that the Presidential Reference could not be
         ignored by the Supreme Court on the ground that tenure of incumbent
         holding the said office was over•.
                                              91                                         H
                                                                                           I
                                                                                        ,...•
                                                                                    I




    92                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2003] I S.C.R.

A        Disposing of the Reference, the Court

         HELD: I.I. The object of Article 317(1) of the Constitution is to give
    protection to a Chairman or other Member of the Public Service
    Commission in the matter of removal on the ground of misbehaviour and,
    therefore, the function of such determination is vested in this Court so
B   that the Public Service Commission may be immune from political
    pressure. (96-E)

          1.2. The necessity to make a Reference to this Court arises by reason
    of Article 317 of the Constitution which provides that the Chairman or
    any other member of a Public Service Commission shall only be removed
C   from his office by, order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour
    after this 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, reported that the Chairman or such other member, as
    the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed. When an
D   incumbent in office has ceased to hold the office, the question of removing
    such a person from office would not arise at all. [95-D-El

          1.3. In the instant case, erstwhile Chairman, Punjab Public Service
    Commission, was facing criminal prosecution on identical charges. Public
    interest will not suffer even if the present proceeding does not continue.
E   In this proceeding on proof of his misbehaviour, President can remove
    him from the office of Chairman of the Public Service Commission but
    when he is already out of the office by reason of his tenure coming to an
    end, question ofremoving him from the said office would not arise at all.
                      '                                        (96-F-H; 97-AJ
F         1.4. Earlier, this Court in Special Reference No.I of 1983 held that
    when the incumbent in office wanted certain benefits to accrue to him even
    after ceasing to hold the office, it became necessary to examine the question
    arising in the case and, then the issue was a live one. However, when tenure
    of an incumbent in office comes to an end and he gives up his claim to
G   retiral benefit, the entire relationship between the State and the said
    incumbent in office will snap. The Reference becomes infructuous in the
    facts and circumsiances of this case. (96-G; 97-BI

         ADVISORY JURISDICTION : Reference No.I of 2002.

H        Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India.
                   IN RE: SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU                          93
         K.T.S. Tulsi, Sanjay Hegde, P. Panneswaran, Harbhagwan Singh,                  A
    Advocate General for State of Punjab, R.S. Suri, Atul Nanda, Ajay Bansal,
    P.H. Parekh, Lalit Chauhan, Sultan Singh and Manish K. Saryal for the
    appearing parties.

          The Report of the Court was delivered
                                                                                        B
           This Reference has been made by the President of India to this Court
    under Article 317( 1} of the Constitution of India seeking immediate suspension
    and removal of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, fonner Chainnan, Punjab
    Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'}, by
    taking action against him levelling several allegations of grave misconduct         C
    and mal-practices. In the Reference, it is stated that the matter requires an
    examination by this Court in tenns of Article 317(1} of the Constitution. In
    the course of the letter sent by the Governor of Punjab to the President on
    29th April 2002, certain details as to the conduct of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh
    Sidhu while functioning as Chainnan of the Commission are set out. There
    is also material placed before this Court in the nature of a Report sent by the     D
    Vigilance Bureau to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab. It is
    not in dispute that criminal cases against the said Shri Ravinder Pal Singh
    Sidhu are pending in different courts in the State of Punjab based on the
    allegations referred to in these two letters of the Governor of Punjab and the
-   Vigilance Bureau.                                                                   E
           After the Reference was received by this Court, notices were issued to
    the Attorney General for India, Advocate General for the State of Punjab,
    Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu and Secretary to the Commission, Shri Ravinder
    Pal Singh Sidhu was appointed as Chainnan of the Commission on 9th
    September, 1996 for a period of six years and his tenn to function as Chainnan      F
    of the Commission came to an end on 8th September, 2002 in tenns of
    Article 316 (2} of the Constitution. On service of notice upon him, he took
    the stand that he had tendered his resignation from the office of Chainnan of
    the Commission and an affidavit was also filed before this Court to that effect
    on 12th August, 2002. However, it was submitted before this Court by the            G
    then Solicitor General of India that the resignation submitted by Shri Ravinder
    Pal Singh Sidhu was not accepted by the Government and in this regard
    arguments were addressed before this Court that the resignation becomes
    automatically effective once the provision of the proviso to Article 316(2} is
    complied with, that is, by submitting resignation addressed to the Governor
    of the State. It is further submitted that the procedure prescribed under Article   H
                                                                                       )

    94                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2003] I S.C.R.

A ·316 of the Constitution provides for the manner in which the Chainnan or
    any other member of a Public Service Commission can resign from his office
    by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor and thus when this
    action has been put into play by the appointee, the said act of resignation is
    complete and becomes operative for the meaning of 'resign from his office';
B   that the procedure envisaged under Article 316(2)(a) cannot be deviated so
    as to make any other act not prescribed in the Constitution; that the option
    to resign by the appointee is absolute and unilateral; that on the mere fact of
    resignation letter to the Governor, the resignation becomes final and is
    operative and effective immediately upon receipt of the same by the concerned
    addressee. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of th~
C   Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors., (1978]
    2 sec 301.

          It was also brought to our notice that this argument need not be
    considered by us in view of the fact that the tenn of the said Shri Ravinder

D
    Pal Singh Sidhu has already come to an end on 8th September, 2002.                             ...
           At this stage, arguments were raised on behalf of the State of Punjab
    that under the relevant provisions the Chairman of the Public Service
    Commission may become entitled to certain retrial benefits and, therefore,
    relationship of master and servant may continue between the State of Punjab
E   and Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu and, therefore, it becomes necessary to              .----
    examine the question of removal of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu from the
    office of Chairman of the Commission.

           Now, it is brought to out notice that Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu has
    ceased to hold the office of Chairman of the Commission on his term coming
F   to an end and thus question of his removal from that office would not arise
    at all. In these circumstances, whether he would still continue to hold the
    office and whether he should be removed from that office does not assume
    any significance. In this regard, on behalf of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu,
    a Memo has been filed in this Court which is in the following tenns:-

G           "I. That my client, Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu has ceased to hold the
                                                                                                   ..
            office of Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission.

            2. That on the same allegations, prosecutions are pending against him
            in Criminal Courts.

H           3. That he gives up all claims to the retiral benefits including pension
                            IN RE: SHRI RA VINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU                          95

                    for the post of Chairman, Punjab Public Setvice Commission.                  A
                    ~. That the above statement is made without prejudice to his rights
                    and contentions in the pending legal proceedings to contend and
                    establish that he is innocent."

             When this accept was brought to the notice of the learned Attorney General, B
             he submitted that be would consider whether the instant Reference made to
             this Court could be withdrawn or not. Now, a submission is made that
             inasmncb as this Reference bas been made at the instance of the Government
             of Punjab, it is primarily for the State of Punjab to make an appropriate
             statement in this regard. On behalf of the State of Punjab, a stand has been
             taken that merely because the tenure of office of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh C
             Sidhu has come to an end does not mean that the matter should not be furthtr
             examined on the Reference made to this Court.

                   The necessity to make a Reference to this Court arises by reason of
             Article 317 of the Constitution which provides that the Chairman or any
             other member of a Public Setvice Commission shall only be removed from              D
             his office by order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour after this
             Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held
             in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalfunder Article 145,
             reported that the Chairman or such other member, as the case may be, ought
             on any such ground to be removed. Therefore, the question for our                   E
             consideration is whether Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, former Chairman of
             the Commission ought, on the ground of misbehaviour referred to in the
             course of the Reference, to be removed from the office of the Chairman of
             the Commission. When an incun1bent in office has ceased to hold the said
             office, the question of removing such a person from office would not arise
             mill                                                                                F
        -\
                   On behalf of the State of Punjab it is submitted that Reference on the
             question of removal of a Chairman of Public Setvice Commission on the
.   )
             ground of misconduct would not become infrnctuous even if tenure of office
             of the Chairman expires during the pendency of the Reference and, in this           G
             context, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Sp!. Reference
             No.I of 1983, reported in (1990) 4 sec 262, wherein it was held that
             considering the nature and importance of the functions discharged by a
             Chairman or Member of the Public Setvice Commission they are given special
             protection by the Constitution under Article 317 and, therefore, the conduct
             of a Member of the Public Setvice Commission under scrutiny of this Court           H
      96                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2003) I S.C.R.
· A in a Reference made by the President of India cannot be ignored on account
    of the tenure being over; that the regulations framed under Article 318 by the
    Governor do not and cannot deal with removal and suspension of a Member
    of the Public Seivice Commission since they are exclusively covered by
    Article 317 of the Constitution; that the Constitution, while dealing with the
  B removal of a Member of the Public Service Commission, does not provide
    for contingencies such as extension of the tenure to complete the inquiry; that
    the issue, therefore, must be treated as a live one even after the expiry of a
    Member's tenure; that when the President of India has requested this Court
    to investigate into the conduct of a Member of the Public Service Commission,
    this Court ought to convey its conclusions rather than refuse to answer the
  C question. In the said case, though this Court made this statement of law, it
    made an observation that whe~er in the event of this proceeding being dropped
    as suggested on behalf of the incumbent in office, if he is ready to give up
    his claim for salary for the period he was under suspension and for pension,
                                                                                         .~-
    it was submitted on behalf of the incumbent of the office that he would not
    give up his claim and would demand arrears of his salary and pension. It is
  D in those circumstances.that this Court proceeded to consider the issue to be
    a live one. In the present case, however, in terms of the Memo filed on behalf
    of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, it is made clear that he is not claiming any
    retiral benefit on his tenure coming to an end.                         ·

  E         We should not ignore that the object of Article 317(1) of the Constitution
      is to give protection to a Chairman or other Member of the Public Service
      Commission in the matter of removal on the ground of misbehaviour and,
      therefore, the function of such determination is vested in this ·Court so that
      the Public Service Commission may be immune from political pressure.

  F        In the present case, Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu is facing criminal
    prosecution on identical charges. Public interest will not suffer even if the              ,.
    proceeding does not continue. In this proceeding on proof of misbehaviour
    of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, all that can happen. is that the President
    can remove him from the office of the Chairman of the Public Seivice
    Commission but when he is already out of the office of the Chairman by
  G reason of his tensure coming to an end, question of removing him from the
    said office would not arise at all. In Special Reference No. I of 1983 [supra),
    when the incumbent in office wanted certain benefits to accrue to him even
    after creasing to hold the office, it became necessary to examine the question
    arising in the case and, therefore, the issue was a live one. When tenure of
  H an incumbent in office comes to an end and he gives up his claim to retiral
                       IN RE: SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU                     97
         benefit, the entire relationship between the State and the said incumbent in A
         office will snap. In such an event, question of removal of such a person from
     1   his office would not arise at all.

               Therefore, the inquiry to be conducted by this Court in the instant
         Reference will be futile and in such circumstances we do not think that the
         Constitution or the President would expect us to undertake such a course. We B
         treat this Reference as having become infructuous ln the facts and
"· '("   circumstances of this case and report the same to the President accordingly.

         S.K.S.                                            Reference disposed of.




,,