Holding

The Court held that evidence in the reference shall be recorded by a sitting judge of the Guwahati High Court, following the procedure laid down in In Re Reference (1983) 4 SCC 258.

Summary

The President of India referred a matter under Article 317(1) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, seeking an inquiry into allegations of misbehaviour against Shri M. Megha Chandra Singh, Chairman of the Manipur Public Service Commission, including tampering with examination papers and taking a bribe. While the reference was pending, the Chairman retired, and the State provisionally sanctioned his pension subject to the Court's decision. The Court examined whether the retirement affected the reference and what procedure should be followed for the inquiry. Relying on the precedent set in In Re Reference (1983) 4 SCC 258, the Court held that the inquiry must be conducted by a sitting judge of the Guwahati High Court, with affidavits treated as examination‑in‑chief and cross‑examination limited to those who filed affidavits. The Court issued detailed guidelines for recording evidence and fixed the first hearing date, ultimately disposing of the petition after ordering the procedure.

Issues considered

Whether the Chairman of the Manipur Public Service Commission can be removed on grounds of misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution.
Whether the retirement of the Chairman during the pendency of the reference affects the Court's jurisdiction and the reference itself.
What procedure should be adopted for the inquiry under Article 317(1), including the forum and mode of taking evidence.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 317(1)

Subjects

Article 317Removal of public service commission chairmanMisbehaviourSupreme Court referenceRetirementEvidence recordingHigh Court judge inquiryPublic service commission

Judgment

REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION A
OF INDIA., REGARDING ENQUIRY AND REPORT ON THE
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SR M. MEGHA CHANDRA SINGH,
CHAIRMAN, MANIPUR SERVICE COMMISSION.

FEBRUARY 18, 1994
B
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ., S.R. PAND,IAN, S, MOHAN,
G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]

Co11stitution of India, 1950: Art. 317-Reference by the President of
India-Chairman of Public Service Commission-Allegations, of mis- C
behavioui-Whether could be removed from office-Evidence to be recorded
by a Sitting Judge of High Cou~irections and g11ideli11es given.

The President of India made a reference to this Court under Article
317 of the Constitution of India for inquiry and report as to whether 'M",
,, Chairman of Manipur Public Service Commission ought to be removed D
from office on the gro_und of misbehaviour. Various allegations were
alleged against him including tampering with question papers and answer
sheets of candidates in certain competitive exqminations, showing favour
to candidates of his choice in the viva voce tests and receiving bribe.
E
During the pendency of the Reference, 'M' retired and the Govern-
ment sanctioned his retiral benefits provisionally subject to the decision
of this Court on the reference.

'M' contended that this reference would have far reaching implica-
tions in so far as it gave credence to the fact of his retirement which was F
allowed by the Governor. He also contended that the appointments made
by him were never questioned by anyone and that the selectees have been
holding their posts for more than 10 years; and that the allegation of
taking bribe was false.
G
This Court gave the following directions and guidelinces :
• -< 1,. It is appropriate to adopt the procedure indicated in Ill Re
Reference under Article 317( 1) of the Co11stitutio11 of India, (1983] 4 SCC
258. The inquiry contemplated under Article 317 is into the, facts themsel-
ves so as to enable this Court to pronounce upon the question whether the u·
37
38 5UPREMECOURTREPORTS (1994] 2 S.C.R

A allegations made against the Chairman of Manipur Public Service Com·
r
mission are proved. Therefore, the evidence in relation to the reference will
be recorded by a Sitting Judge of the High Court of Guwahati wh'l will be
nominated by the Chief Justice of Gawahati High Court within four weeks.
(41 A·B]
2. The affidavtis tiled in this Court will be treated as the examina-
B !ion-in-chief of the respective witnesses. The evidence to be recorded will
be llmited to the cross-examination of witnesses who have filed affidavits
before this Court. In other words, no person who has not filed an affidavit
in this Court will be examined or cr~ss-examined as a witness, except with
the leave of this Court. Witnesses who have tiled affidavits in this Court
C may be summoned or requested by the Judge to attend his Court for the
purpose of cross-examination. The proceedings will normally be held in
Guwahati. Evidence may, however, be recorded at any other place if the
Judge considers it necessary or convenient. The question relating to the
admissibility and relevance of a particular evidence will be decided by this
Court. [41 C-GJ.
D
ADVISORY JURISDICTION : Special Reference No. 1 of 1985.

Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India.

Ms. Indira Jaising, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Bina Madhavan for the
E Petitioner.

V.C. Mahajan and Ms. S. Janani for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

F This is a reference dated 30.1.1985 under Artide 317 of the Constitu·
tion of India by the President of India for inquiry and report as to whether
Shri Megha Chandra Singh, Chairman of Manipur Public Service Comrnis·
sion, ought, on the ground of misbehaviour to be removed from the office
of the Chairman of the Commission.
G
The order of reference reads as under :

"Whereas the Chief Ministe.r of Manipur has reported to the
,
Government of India that he had been receiving complaint from
different sources against Shri Megha Chandra Singh, Chairman,
H Manipur Public Service Commission, expressing doubts about his
REGO. ENQUIRY AGAINST M.M. CHANDRA MANIPUR SERVICE COMM. 39

honesty and integrity. A
And whereas the Government of India felt it necessary that it
should conduct a probe into the allegations through a central
agency with a view to collecting such evidencee as may be available
and to satisfy itself that there is indeed a prima facie case, it
entrusted. the investigation to ihe Central Bureau of Investigation B
to give a report.

And whereas according to the report of the Central Bureau of
Investigation, the conduct of Shri Megha Chandra Singh did not
appear to be above board and further that Shri Megha Chandra C
., Singh refused to make available to the Tnvestigation officer the
relevant documents required iu: tbe purpose of the aforesaid
inquiry, which were in his personal custody.

And whereas the Government of Manipur has reiterated their
request that because of the gravity of the allegations the State D
. Government desire to ho.ve >r full-fleged investigation so that the
real truth may come out ana the issues involved are settled to the
satisfaction of all concerned.

And whereas I am satisfied from the above referred materials E
before me that it is necessary that the said allegations be inquired
into;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upoit me
by clause (1) of Article 317 of the Constitution, I Zail Singh,
· President of India, hereby refer to the Supreme Court of India, F
for inquiry and report as to whether Shri Megha Chandra Singh,
Chairman, Manipur Public Service Commission, ought, ·on the
ground of misbehaviour lo be removed from the office of the Chair-
man of the Commission.

New Delhi
G
Delhi : 30th January, 1985

Sd/-
(Zail Singh)
PRESIDENT OF INDlA". H
40 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A The allegations against Shri Megha Chandra Singh are as follows :

"(a) That the mark-sheets of the prospective candidates for the
posts of Assistant Engineer (Electricals) and Assistant Director
(Statistics) were tampered with, forged and fabricated in the office
of the Chairman, Manipur Public Service Commission in order to
B show favours to certain candidates.

(b) That the answer books for the Manipur Civil Service/Maniput
Police Service Examiniation conducted in September, 1981 were
tempered with. The mark-sheets and the tabulated charts furnished
c by the examiners and kept in the personal custody of the Chairman,
were also tampered with and forged to show favours to certain
candidates.

(c) The Chairman introduced a new system of marking in the
viva voce tests in which marks were recorded and signed only by
D the Chairman. Other Members of the Commission or repre-
sentatives of Government Departments were not allowed to sign
the mark-sheets. The Chairman introduced this new consensus
system in viva-voice tests to enable him to make manipulations in
the mark-sheets with a view to showing favour to candidates of his
E choice.

(6) One Shri L. Ibomacha Singh is alleged to have stated to
have paid a bribe of Rs. 15,000/- to the Chairman for his selection
as a Sub-Deputy Collector under Manipur Government."

F In the meanwhile, Shri Megha Chandra Singh retired and the State
was directed to take appropriate instructions in the matter. Shri Megha
Chandra Singh filed a counter to the effect that this order has far reaching
implications in so far as it gave credence to the fact of his retirement on
19.1.1987 which retirement was allowed earlier by the Governor by his
G order dated 5.1.1987. On 31.7.1991, the Government was pleased to sanc-
tion the payment of admissible pension provisionally subject to the final
pension and the decision of this Court on reference.

On the charges, he would urge that the appointments made by him
were never questioned by anyone. The selectees have been holding their
H posts for more than 10 years. The allegation of taking bribe is false, baseless
REGO. ENQUIRY AGAINSI'M.M. CHANDRA MANIPUR SERVICE COMM. 41

and malacious. A
Under these circumstances, we feel appropriate to adopt the proce-
dure indicated in In Re Reference under Acticle 317(1) of the Constitution
of India, [1983) 4 SCC 2,58. The inquiry contemplated under Article 317 is
into the facts themselves so as to enable this Court to pronounce upon the
question whether the allegations made against the Chairman of Manipur B
Public. Service Commission are proved. Therefore, we direct evidence in
relation to the reference will be recorded by a sitting Judge of the High
Court of Guwahati who will be nominated by the learned Chief Justice of
High Court of Gauhati. The nomination may be made within four weeks
from the date of this order. C
In recording the evidence, the 1<''.lru~d juctge may adopt the following
guidelines:

(i) The affidavits filed in this Court will be treated as the examina--
tion-in-chief of the respective witnesses. D

(ii) The evidence to be recorded by the learned Judge will be
limited to the cross-examination of witnesses who have filed af-
fidavits before us. In other wrmls, no person who has not filed an
affidavit in this Court will be examined or cross-examined as a E
witness, except with the leave of this Court.

(iii) Witnesses who have filed affidavits in this Court may be
summoned or requested by the learned Judge to attend his Court
for the purpose of cross-examination. The proceedings will nor-
mally be held in Guwahati. Evidence may, however, be recorded F
at any other place if the learned Judge considers it necessary or
convenient."

The question relating to the admissibility and relevance of a par-
ticular evidence will be decided by this Court.
G
The first date of hearing is fixed on Monday, the 4th April, 1994 at
11 A.M. Thereafter, it will proceed from day to day till the completion of
evidence.

G.N. Petition disposed of.