http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 22

PETITIONER:

REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITU-TION OF INDIA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/08/1990

BENCH:

SHARMA, L.M. (J)

BENCH:

SHARMA, L.M. (J)

SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:

1990 SCC (4) 262 JT 1990 (3) 453

1990 SCALE (2)236

ACT:

Constitution of India, 1950/Punjab State Public Service

Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958: Arti-

cles 317 and 318--Member, Public Service Commission Removal

of--Inquiry into conduct--Presidential Reference to Supreme

Court--Whether becomes infructuous on expiry of term mean-

while--General law of master and servant applicable to

government servants Applicability of--Conduct of Member in

slapping Chairman--Whether amounts to misbehaviour rendering

him liable to removal from office.

HEADNOTE:

The President of India made a reference under Article

317(1) of the Constitution to this Court for inquiry and

report on the conduct of the respondent, a Member of the

Punjab State Public Service Commission.

In a letter addressed to the Governor of the State, with

a copy to the Chief Minister, the Chairman of the Punjab

State Public Service Commission complained that on

24.11.1982, while she was proceeding to her office from the

Committee Room, along with the respondent and three other

members. after interviewing candidates for certain appoint-

ments, the respondent, without any provocation, gave a full

blooded hard slap across her face, when she was discussing

with him regarding his absence on previous days. The other

three members, who were just behind her, also addressed a

joint letter to the Governor about the incident. Since the

Governor was not available in the State, the Chairman and

the three members reported the matter to the Chief Minister,

and handed over the letters to him. The Chief Minister

forwarded the complaint to the Government of India and

directed the Chief Secretary to take necessary action in the

matter. The Chief Secretary recorded the statements of the

members. Thereafter, the respondent received a charge-sheet

from the Chief Secretary asking for his reply. Besides

taking several objections, the respondent denied the version

of the Chairman and claimed that during the course of the

discussions, when the Chairman lost her temper and was going

to attack her with a raised hand, he caught her hand to

avoid attack and insult. The other three members generally

supported the Chairman's allegations. After considering the

reply of the respondent and the statements

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 22

578

of the three other members, the President of India made the

Reference.

This Court directed notice to be served on all the five

members of the Commission and they ,filed their sworn state-

ments. Affidavits were also filed by several other persons

who claimed to have knowledge of the incident or of its

background.

Overruling the objections of the respondent that since

the incident, if assumed to be true, may lead to his indict-

ment of having committed a criminal act or in any event an

act which may expose him to civil action, the Reference

should not have been made by the President without fully

satisfying himself (by getting the matter investigated) that

a prima facie case was made out and that this Court should

not make an enquiry into allegations involving disputed

facts as that may prejudice a future action in the ordinary

civil 'or criminal court, this Court directed the District

and Session Judge, Delhi to nominate an Additional District

and Session Judge for the purpose of recording evidence and

transmitting the same to this Court. Accordingly, the evi-

dence which was led before the Additional District and

Sessions Judge was forwarded to this Court.

It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the

Reference must be treated to have become infructuous and

need not be answered because the respondent's tenure had

already expired and he could not be removed from his office

and it was futile to examine the evidence recorded in the

case in pursuance of the order of this Court and to record a

finding on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations

made against him, that the period of six years had been

rigidly fixed making it clear that the period should not be

extended and the member, on the expiration of his term would

be ineligible for reappointment and that the principle as

applicable to the Government servants in the disciplinary

proceedings should be made applicable to the members of the

Public Service Commission also. It was also contended that

the evidence of complainant and other witnesses relied upon

by her were not fully consistent and that their case had

been developing from stage to stage which indicated its

unreliable nature, and that several important documents were

not filed in the proceeding by the State and Public Service

Commission in spite of repeated requests, which had preju-

diced the respondent.

Answering the Reference, this Court,

HELD: 1.1 The conduct of a Member of the Public Service

579

Commission has been considered important enough to be di-

rectly dealt with by the Constitution itself. The efficiency

and purity of administration are greatly dependent on the

right choice of the candidates to be entrusted with official

duty; and to ensure that suitable persons, in whom the

public may have full faith are selected, it was considered

necessary to have a body with members of integrity, sinceri-

ty and practical wisdom capable of commanding the confidence

of the people for examining the merits of the candidates and

make available to the appointing authorities their conclu-

sion. Taking into account the possibility of their being

subject to pressure, they were given special protection by

the Constitution under Article 317 providing that they-

except in cases covered by Clause (3)---can be removed from

their office only by an order of the President on the ground

of misbehaviour after an inquiry by the Supreme Court in

this regard. The fact that the apex Court of the country was

entrusted with such a duty indicates the great importance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 22

which has been attached to the office of the Member of the

Commission. Under clause (2) of Article 317, authority to

suspend the Chairman or Member of the State Commission

pending an inquiry by the Supreme Court has been vested with

the Governor. Hence, the conduct of a Member of the Commis-

sion under scrutiny of this Court in a reference made by the

President cannot be ignored on account of the tenure being

over. [585B-E]

1.2 The Regulations flamed under Article 318 by the

Governor do not and cannot deal with removal and suspension

of a Member of the Commission since they are exclusively

covered by Article 317. The Constitution, while dealing with

the removal of a Member of the Commission does not provide

for extending the term of a Member pending enquiry into his

conduct. The issue, therefore, must be treated as a live one

even after the expiry of a Member's tenure. The President of

India has requested the Court to investigate into the con-

duct of a Member and this Court ought to convey its conclu-

sions rather than refuse to answer the question. [583F-G;

586A-B]

1.3 The case of a government servant is, subject to the

special provisions, governed by the law of master and serv-

ant, but the position of Member of the Commission is differ-

ent. The latter holds a constitutional post and is governed

by the special provisions dealing with different aspects of

his office as envisaged by Articles 315 to 323 of Chapter II

of part XIV of the Constitution. The reference will have to

be answered on the merits of the case with reference to the

complaint and the respondent's defence. [586D-E]

580

R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 P.C. 27;

State of Assam and Others v. Padma Ram Sarah, AIR 1965 SC

473; Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam and Others,

[1978] 1 SCR 607; B.J. Shefat v. State of Gujarat and Oth-

ers, [1978] 3 SCR 553 and C.L. Verma v. State of Madhya

Pradesh and another, J.T. 1989 4 SC 182, distinguished.

2.1 There is no dispute that some incident did take

place on 24.11.1982 in the Public Service Commission build-

ing. The respondent was absent earlier which led to some

discussion between the complainant Chairman and the respond-

ent. According to the Chairman's evidence, she received a

hard slap across her face, although she was talking to the

respondent politely. Her statement that the respondent had

slapped her without any provocation and that she was talking

to him politely cannot be accepted. The version of the

respondent with respect of the manner in which she was

asking for his explanation may be correct. She was used to

her arrogant ways and authoritarian manner while talking

even with her colleagues, and hence the statement of the

respondent that she was assuming a bossy posture and was

insisting on an on the spot oral explanation from him may be

correct. [583F; 582D; 601D-E]

The evidence on record does indicate that the Chairman

was attempting to exercise her power in an authoritarian

manner and lost her patience even with her colleagues if she

was not readily obeyed and on more than one occasion in the

past she got annoyed with the other Members and attempted to

get them removed from the Commission. However, the other

three Members of the Commission have pledged their oath in

support of the allegation that the respondent had slapped

the Chairman. The circumstances in which the things proceed-

ed also corroborated their version. Over and above all this,

the statements made by the respondent himself go to support

to a great extent the complainant's case of physical as-

sault. [598F-G; 599F-G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 22

All the three Members of the Commission are unanimous

and emphatic in stating that the respondent did slap the

Chairman hard on her face. They also say that this was

without provocation, which means that there was no physical

provocation on the part of the Chairman. The three witnesses

were cross-examined at great length and were subjected to a

very large number of searching questions. There is no mate-

rial coming out of the same on the basis of which they can

be discredited. Though it was not a completely unprovoked

situation in which respondent had hit the Chairman, his

statement that the provocation was not limited to a verbal

duel and extended to the Chairman raising her hand

581

as if to assault him, justifying him to slap her cannot be

accepted as correct. The Chairman did not attack or intimi-

date respondent with physical violence and the respondent

losing his self-control at the arrogance of the Chairman in

her talk with him, slapped her. [601F-G; 603A-B; D]

2.2 Persons occupying high public offices should main-

tain irreproachable behaviour. A certain minimum standard of

code of conduct is expected of them. What may be excusable

for an uneducated young man cannot be tolerated if a Member

of a Public Service Commission is involved. Besides, the

respondent and the Chairman were not thrashing out a person-

al matter or a private dispute. They were discussing a

question involving their office and this in broad-day-light

in the open corroder of the Commission's building. Whatever

the provocation offered by the Chairman, the respondent was

not justified in losing his cool to the extent of indulging

in physical violence. That the violence should have been

directed against a lady makes his conduct all the more

reprehensible. The respondent miserably failed in maintain-

ing the standard of conduct expected of a Member of the

Commission and thereby brought great disrepute to his of-

fice. Hence the respondent's conduct amounted to misbeha-

viour within the meaning of Article 317(1) of the Coustitu-

tion and it rendered him liable to be removed from his

office of the Member of the Punjab Public Service Commis-

sion. [604G-H; 605A-B]

3. The refusal to produce the documents prayed for by

the respondent has not prejudiced him since he was not

entitled to those documents.

JUDGMENT:

ADVISORY JURISDICTION: Special Reference No. 1-of 1983.

(Under Article 3 17(1) of the Constitution of India).

R.N. Mittal, Pradeep Gupta, Prakash Chandra, Mrs. Rekha

Dayal, Mrs. Sarla Chandra and Girish Chandra for the Peti-

tioners.

Ashok Desai, Additional Solicitor General, G.L. Sanghi,

A. Subba Rao, Ms. A subhashini, S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher,

Atul Nanda and C.M. Nayyar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHARMA, J. This is a reference under Article 317(1) of

the Constitution made by the President of India to this

Court for inquiry and report on the complaint of Smt. San-

tosh Chowdhary, Chairman of

582

the Punjab Public Service Commission alleging misbehaviour

on the part of Sri Gopal Krishna Saini, a Member of the

Commission.

2. According to the case of Smt. Chowdhary, a number of

candidates for certain appointments were interviewed at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 22

Patiala on 24.11. 1982 till about 1.15 p.m. Thereafter Smt.

Chowdhary along with Sri Saini and the other three Members

of the Commission left the Committee room and proceeded

towards the complainant's office when a very unpleasant

incident took place. Sri Saini had been absent on the previ-

ous two days and Smt. Chowdhary, the Chairman, enquired from

him the reason. She also asked him to inform her in advance

whenever in the future he had to remain absent. According to

her further case, Sri Saini did not take the advice in the

right spirit and suggested that the Chairman may put the

same in writing on which she wanted a clarification as to

the matter she was being asked to put in writing. She al-

leges that thereupon Sri Sain, without any provocation or

any further conversation gave a full blooded hard slap

across her face which not only stunned her but left her in

great physical shock and pain. Other Members of the Commis-

sion who were just behind her were also shocked by this

conduct. One of the Members led her to her office and the

other two Members also later followed but Sri Saini disap-

peared from the scene. It is said that she sent her com-

plaint in the form of a confidential letter addressed to Dr.

M. Chenna Reddy, the then Governor of Punjab, with a copy to

Sri Darbara Singh, the then Chief Minister of Punjab.

3. Before proceeding further with the other details

leading to the present Reference it may be stated that Smt.

Chowdhary was appointed a Member of the Punjab Public Serv-

ice Commission in February 1975 and as the Chairman on

28.4.1980. Sri Saini was appointed a Member on 30.5. 1980.

After the Gensral Elections in Punjab Sri Darbara Singh

became the Chief Minister 0f the State in early June, 1980.

4. The GovernOr was not available in Punjab and, there-

fore, it is said that the complaint was forwarded to the

Government of India by the Chief Minister on 25.11.1982. The

alleged incident did not get any publicity for sometime and

a news item appeared in one of the daily papers for the

first time on 11.12.1982. Sir Saini thereafter received a

charge-sheet dated 15.12.1982 from the Chief Secretary

asking for his reply. Besides taking several technical

objections, Sri Saini denied the, story of Smt. Chowdhary.

The other three Members of the Commission, namely, Sri H.S.

Deol, Sri M.S. Brar and Sri W.G. Lall, gener-

583

ally supported the complainant's allegation. The present

Reference was made by the President of India after consider-

ing the reply of Sri saini and the statements of Sri Deol,

Sri Brar and Sri Lall.

5. After the receipt of the Reference, this Court di-

rected notice tO be served on all the five Members of the

Commission and they filed their sworn statements. Affidavits

were also filed by several other persons who claimed to have

knowledge of the incident or of its alleged background. The

Attorney General for India and the Advocate General of

Punjab also appeared to assist the Court. It was contended

on behalf of Sri Saini that since the alleged incident if

assumed to be true, may lead to his indictment of having

committed a criminal act or in any event an act which may

expose him to civil action, the reference should not have

been made by the President without fully satisfying himself

(by getting the matter investigated) that a prima facie case

was made out. It was argued that this Court should not make

an inquiry into allegations involving disputed facts as that

may prejudice a future action in the ordinary civil or

criminal court. After considering the questions raised by

Sri Saini at some length, this Court by its judgment dated

17.8.1983 overruled the objections and directed the District

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 22

and Sessions Judge, Delhi to nominate an Additional District

and Sessions Judge for the purpose of recording evidence and

transmitting the same to this Court. Accordingly evidence

which was led before the Additional District and Sessions

Judge has been forwarded to this Court. The case, however,

was not promptly listed for final disposal under the wrong

impression that it could be disposed of only by a Constitu-

tion Bench which was not available on account of more urgent

cases.

6. Before the Additional District Judge a large number

of witnesses were examined at considerable length. A number

of documents and affidavits also form part of the records.

There does not appear to be any dispute that some incident

did take place on 24.11. 1982 soon after 1,00 p.m. in the

Public Service Commission building at Patiala. Sri Saini was

absent earlier which led to some discussion between the

complainant Chairman and the respondent Sri Saini. The

parties however differ as to what actually happened at that

stage. According to the case of the complainant, she has

reiterated her earlier version as disclosed in the com-

plaint. Mr. R.N. Mittal, the learned counsel appearing for

Shri Saini, has however attempted to suggest that her evi-

dence and the evidence of other witnesses relied upon by her

are not fully 'consistent and that their case has been

developing from stage to stage indicating its unreliable

nature. A simi

584

lar comment is made on behalf of the complainant on the

evidence led by Sri Saini. We will have to deal with the

evidence at some length.

7. Sri. R.N. Mittal also contended that several impor-

tant documents were not filed in the proceeding by State of

Punjab and the Public Service Commission inspite of repeated

requests which has prejudiced Sri Saini. An application was

moved before this Court for a direction to produce a number

of documents which was registered as C.MP. No. 37191 of 1983

and was disposed of by the order dated 9.12. 1983 at pages

1023-1024 of Vol. VI of the paper book). While dealing with

some of the documents it was observed that the petitioner

(Sri Saini would be at liberty to contend during the hearing

of the Reference case that he has been prejudiced in his

defence by reason of the fact that he was not allowed to

inspect them and if this Court accepts that contention it

may become necessary to allow the petitioner to inspect

those documents and to recall certain witnesses for further

examination. When the case was taken up before us, Sri

Mittal reiterated the stand of Sri Saini and explained the

nature of the documents sought to be produced for inspec-

tion. We examined the matter closely at considerable length

and we do no agree with Sri R.N. Mittal that the petitioner

(Sri Saini) was entitled to inspect the documents referred

to above and the refusal in this regard has prejudiced him.

8. Sri R.N. Mittal next contended that the reference

must be treated to have become infructuous and need not be

answered. As provided in Article 3 16(2), the tenure of

office of a Member of a Public Service Commission is six

years (subject to reduction of the period in case of the

Member reaching the age of superannuation earlier, which is

not the case here). The term of office of Sri Saini was to

expire in May, 1986. The contention of Sri Mittal is that

since his tenure expired in 1986, Sri Saini cannot now be

removed from his office and it is, therefore, futile to

examine the evidence recorded in the case in pursuance of

the earlier order of this Court, and to record a finding on

the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 22

him. Referring to the provisions of Article 316, dealing

with the appointment and term of office of Members, the

learned counsel emphasised the fact that the period of six

years has been rigidly fixed making it clear that the period

cannot be extended and the Member on the expiration of his

term would be ineligible for re-appointment. Reliance was

placed on several decisions dealing with disciplinary pro-

ceedings against the government servants, and it was argued

that the same principle should be applicable to Members of

the Public Service Commissions. Reference was made to the

decisions in R.T. Rangachari

585

v. Secretary of State, AIR-1937 P.C. 27; State of Assam and

Others v. Padma Ram Borah, AIR 1965 SC 473; Dinesh Chandra

Sangrna v. State of Assam and Others, [1978] 1 SCR 607; B.J.

Shefat v. State of Gujarat and Others, [1978] 3 SCR 553 and

C.L. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, J.T. 1989

4 SC 182. An examination of these decisions would show that

the cases depended on the interpretation and effect of the

relevant service rules dealing with the conditions of serv-

ice including provisions in regard to retirement and compul-

sory retirement. So far the present case is concerned, the

conduct of a Member of the Public Service Commission' is in

question which has been considered important enough to be

directly dealt with by the Constitution itself. The effi-

ciency and purity of administration are greatly dependent on

the right choice of the candidates to be entrusted with

official duty; and to ensure that suitable persons, in whom

the public may have full faith are selected, it was consid-

ered necessary to have a body with members of integrity,

sincerity, and practical wisdom capable of commanding the

confidence of the people for examining the merits of the

candidates and make available to the appointing authorities

their conclusion. Taking into account the possibility of

their being subject to pressure, they were given special

protection by the Constitution under Article 3 17 providing

that they--except in cases covered by Clause (3)--can be

removed from their office only by an order of the President

on the ground of misbehaviour' after an inquiry by the

Supreme Court in this regard. The fact that the apex Court

of the country was entrusted with such a duty indicates the

great importance which has been attached to the office of

the Member of the Commission. Under clause (2) of Article 3

17, authority to suspend the Chairman or Member of the

Commission pending an inquiry by the Supreme Court has been

vested with the Governor in the case of a State Commission.

If the position is examined in this background it is diffi-

cult to suggest that the conduct of a member of the Commis-

sion under scrutiny of this Court in a reference made by the

President can be ignored on account of the tenure being

over. The Regulations framed under Article 3 18 by the

Governor do not and cannot deal with removal and suspension

of a Member of the Commission since they are exclusively

covered by Article 3 17. Part V of the Punjab State Public

Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations,

1958, provides for the payment of pension with the proviso

that a Member who has been removed from office shall not be

entitled to the same, So far as the government servants are

concerned, there are specific set of. rules in regard to

pension, inter alia dealing with cases in which government

servants are found guilty of serious charges committed on

the eve of their retirement. The rules governing many serv-

ices also

586

provide for extending the period of service of the govern-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 22

ment servant with a view to complete a pending disciplinary

proceeding. In the case of a Member of the Commission, the

Constitution, while dealing with the removal of a Member,

does not provide for such contingencies. The issue, there-

fore, must be treated as a live one even after the expiry of

a Member's tenure. The President of India has requested this

Court to investigate into the conduct of a Member and this

Court ought to convey its conclusions rather than refuse to

answer the question. During the hearing of the case, we

enquired from Sri Mittal, the learned counsel for Sri Saini,

whether, in the event of this proceeding being dropped as

suggested on his behalf, he is ready to give up his claim

for salary for the period he was under suspension and for

pension, and Sri Mittal after taking instructions from Sri

Saini, who was present in Court throughout the arguments,

stated that the respondent would not give up his claim and

would demand arrears of his salary and pension.

9. The case of a government servant is, subject to the

special provisions, governed by the law of master and serv-

ant, but the position in the case of a Member of the Commis-

sion is different. The latter holds a constitutional post

and is governed by the special provisions dealing with

different aspects of his office as envisaged by Articles 3

15 to 323 of Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution. In

our view the decisions dealing with service cases relied

upon on behalf of the respondent have no application to the

present matter and the reference will have to be answered on

the merits of the case with reference to the complaint and

the respondent's defence.

10. The evidence which has been led in this case is

voluminous. The details dealing with the admission of evi-

dence had been considered by this Court earlier and after

considering the relevant Constitutional provisions, the

Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court

Rules, an order in this regard was passed on 17.8.1983.

There is no grievance by the parties before us on this

aspect, excepting the contention on behalf of Sri Saini that

he has been prejudiced in his defence on account of non-

availability of a number of documents, with which we do not

agree.

11. We have gone through the entire evidence in the case

and have heard elaborate arguments by the learned counsel

representing the parties. The questions which have now to be

answered are:

(i) Whether Sri Saini had slapped Smt. Chowdhary and, if so,

in what circumstances?

587

(ii) Whether Sri Saini acted in a manner which rendered him

liable to be removed from his office of Member of the Punjab

Public Service Commission?

12. The allegation of Smt. Chowdhary which she made in

her letter dated 24.11. 1982 has been mentioned earlier. The

letter was drafted by her in her office room immediately

after the incident. Immediately thereafter the other three

Members, Sri Deol, Sri Brar and Sri Lall drafted a joint

letter addressed to the Governor, which reads as follows:

"With great regret we saw a dastardly happening

today in the Commission premises. When we were walking down

the corridor from the Committee Room after the days inter-

views with the candidates, Mr. G.K. Saini was walking ahead

with Mrs. Santosh ChoWdhary, the Chairman. She was apparent-

ly inquiring from him about his absence from the interviews

on the previous two days. Just outside the Chairman's of-

fice, Mr. Saini asked the Chairman to give him in writing.

Mr. Saini without any provocation slapped her right across

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 22

the face.

This dastardly incident has left us all completely

stunned and shocked. Apart from anything else, this tran-

scends all civilised behaviour not only to the Chairman of

the Commission but also to a lady who deserves the highest

courtesy.

We would like to place on record our great sense of

shock at this uncivilised and criminal behaviour. We humbly

submit that we would not like to sit on the Commission with

Mr. G.K. Saini. We strongly urge that action may kindly be

taken to have him removed from such a high office

forthwith."

It was decided by all four of them, that is, the Chairman

and the three Members, to report the matter personally to

the Governor and with that view they all proceeded to Chand-

igarh. The Governor was, however, not available before the

1st of December, 1982, and the matter was reported to the

Chief Minister Sri Darbara Singh and the letters were handed

over to him. The Chief Minister called Sri K.D. Vasudeva,

Chief Secretary, and directed him to take necessary action.

Sri Deol, Sri Brar and Sri Lall also made statements before

the Chief

588

Secretary on solemn affirmation on 20.12. 1982 which were

recorded by the Chief Secretary and signed by the Members

respectively. According to the statements before the Chief

Secretary, Sri Deol, and Sri Lall suggested to Sri Saini

that he should immediately apologise to Smt. Chowdhary but

he refused to do so: In the meantime Sri Brar accompanied

Smt. Chowdhary into her room where the other two Members

also joined them, after leaving behind Sri Saini in his

room. ;if Deol further stated that when he asked Sri Saini

as to why did he behave in the rude and uncultured manner,

he replied in Punjabi that 'this is the way we do it". They

all insisted that without any provocation from Smt. Chowd-

hary Sri Saini had slapped her, In respect to the better

dated 15.12.1982 of the Chief Secretary, Sri Saini, vide

letter dated 24.12.1982, besides taking preliminary objec-

tion to the said letter which was in substance a show cause

notice, placed his version of the incident in the following

words:

"On 24.11.1982, when we came out of the Committee

Room, she took me ahead of all other Members since she said

that she wanted to talk to me alone, so that other members

could pot hear. I followed her. She demanded explanation as

to why | had not attended the meetings on the preceding two

days. I told her that 1 had informed her in advance. But she

insisted that the application should have been submitted and

got sanctioned from her in advance. I told her that she was

proceeding against the decision of the Public Service Com-

mission taken around July 1981 by all the members. I told

her to give in writing, so that I could seek a fresh man-

date. I told her that the Chairman alone could not overrule

the decision of all the members. She felt I was challenging

her seniority. She lost temper and was going to attack me

with a raised hand, when I caught her hand to avoid attack

and insult. It is absolutely incorrect that I gave any slap

or in any other manner attacked her.

The other members, who were at some distance,

reached later. Some candidates, who had come for interview

that day and some office staff had reached earlier and

separated us.

Sarvshri H.S. Deol and W.G. Lall took me aside and

asked me to go to the Chairman, who, they said was a lady. I

told them that I have been wronged but they should not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 22

589

add insult to injury by making me to go to the Chairman."

He told the Chief Secretary that he came from a renowned

family of lawyers and that his eider brother had held a

judicial post for three decades and had retired from the

post of District and Sessions judge. He was himself a lawyer

of 18 years standing and was of a cool temperament never

losing his temper which would be supported by the members of

the public. He further said that his relations with Smt.

Chowdhary, who was his neighbour, were most cordial, and the

two families were on visiting terms. When his son was in-

volved in a road accident Smt. Chowdhary was very sympathet-

ic and helpful to him and the two had been going to the

office on many occasions in the same car. However, the

unfortunate incident happened mainly due to the temperament

of the Chairman. She suffers from a complex that she is the

'boss' and nobody could express an honest difference of

opinion even on trifling matters. In the past she had been

behaving in a wholly unreasonable manner with the Members of

the Commission including one Sri Mitha, retired earlier, and

Sri Deol, the sitting Member. All this can be proved from

the records available at the Governor's Secretariat. Ex-

plaining as to why the other Members were supporting Smt.

Chowdhary, the respondent stated that they became hostile to

him as he had refused to apologise to the lady. He also

pointed out that although they had indicated in their earli-

er letters that they did not like sitting with him, as a

matter of fact, they continued holding the interviews of the

candidates along with the respondent.

13. After service of notice issued by this Court all

these five persons as also Sri Darbara Singh, Chief Minis-

ter, and the Chief Secretary and a number of other. persons

who claimed to have information of the incident filed their

affidavits before this Court. Sri Saini filed a long affida-

vit along with annexures which is included at pages 19 to 90

in Vol. I of the paper book. He also filed separate counter

affidavits explaining his stand with reference to the state-

ments made by the other persons so far they went against

him. The counter affidavit of Smt. Chowdhary in reply to Sri

Saini's affidavit is also a detailed one and is included at

pages 1-34 of Vol. II of the paper book. Other further

affidavits filed by many persons described as counter affi-

davits or rejoinder affidavits or affidavits in reply were

filed before this Court in 1983.

14. Apart from denying the version of the incident as

presented in the complaint petition and the affidavits of

the Chairman, Sri Saini has attempted to give the background

in which the present accusation

590

has been made against him. According to his case, there were

two groups in the ruling Congress Party in Punjab, one led

by Giani Zail Singh, who later became the President of

India, and the other of Sri Darbara Singh. Sri Saini was

appointed a Member of the Public Service Commission on

30.5.1980, that is, just a day before the General Elections

for the State, in which Sri Darbara Singh emerged as the

leader. He took charge of the office of Chief Minister on

6.6. 1980 and was disappointed to find that the constitution

of the Commission was complete with the Chairman and five

Members. In August, 1982 Sri D.S. Sodhi one of the Members

retired and Sri Darbara Singh wanted to have his nominee in

his place. The Governor, Sri Chenna Reddy, however, declined

to fill up the 6th post and Sri Darbara Singh was, there-

fore, piqued at the situation. He became determined to get

his nominee appointed even if it required some manoeuvre for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 22

creating the vacancy. In the meantime some misunderstanding

developed between Sri Darbara Singh and the wife of Sri

Saini, Smt. Krishna Chaudhary, who is a social worker. Smt.

Kirshna had led a deputation of the villagers of certain

locality to the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and

the Chief Minister felt that this was a move against him and

he threatened her publicly. Both the Chief Minister and Smt.

Krishna have been examined as witnesses in this case and

have been cross-examined at considerable length. Mr. Mittal,

the learned counsel for the respondent, developed the theory

of a conspiracy in his argument on the basis of the evidence

led in the case and argued that Sri Darbara Singh hatched

out the conspiracy to get the respondent removed from his

office, to which Smt. Chowdhary became a colluding party.

When a minor incident took place on 24.11. 1982 she exploit-

ed the situation to her advantage with a view to please the

Chief Minister, and the Members being impressed by the drama

enacted by her, fell for her story. It was argued by the

learnedcounsel that the original complaint petition of Smt.

Chowdhary which was drawn up like an F.I.R. was not trace-

able on the records of the Governor's Secretariat and could

not be filed as evidence. Referring to its zerox copy it was

pointed that the same did not bear any official number of

the office of the Public Service Commission; and, the en-

dorsements made thereon were also characterised as suspi-

cious. Governor was to return to Punjab by the end of the

month, but waiting for a single day the Chief Minister

decided to take immediate hasty step on the complaint and

directed the Chief Secretary accordingly. Relying on the

evidence which indicates that Smt. Chowdhary along with the

other three Members and a stenographer, travelling with his

typewriter in another car, all proceeded from Patiala to

Chandigarh, it was urged that if the complaint petition and

591

the joint petition of the three Members had already been

drafted at Patiala, where was the necessity of two car loads

of people along with a typewriter to proceed to Chandigarh.

The argument is that Smt. Chowdhary took care of taking the

three Members to meet the Chief Minister and get committed

to their story. thus closing their way to return to the

truth. The evidence of several other witnesses examined in

support of the defence of Sri Saini's version of the inci-

dent was also relied upon.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent placed the

subsequent statements of the three Members of the Commission

and contended that they show a clear departure from their

original stand. Similar criticism has been made against the

evidence of Smt. Chowdhary also. In our view, there is no

vital difference in their statements made from time to time

which may render their evidence doubtful. But before we

proceed to examine the evidence in detail on this aspect, we

would briefly indicate the nature of the other evidence led

in the case.

16. A number of affidavits were attached to main affida-

vit of Sri Saini filed in this case on 1.3.1983. In these

affidavits sworn on 28.2. 1983 and 1.3.1983, some of the

deponents claimed to be eyewitnesses of the incident, and

they denied the story of slapping of the Chairman by the

respondent. They are Ujagar Singh, Avtar Singh, Labh Singh

and Hakam Singh. According to their version it was the

Chairman who was shouting at the respondent and had raised

her hand in air. Hakam Singh subsequently did not support

his earlier statement and according to the case of the

respondent supported by a second affidavit of Ujagar Singh,

he had been won over through the police. The respondent had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 22

also attached an affidavit of his wife stating that she

being a social worker had met the Prime Minister to press

the grievance of certain villagers which enraged the Chief

Minister. The Chief Minister subsequently threatened her

with a warning that she would be set right. This story has

been again supported by the affidavits of Labh Singh, Baksh-

ish Singh, Niranjan Singh, Mahendra Singh and Swaran Singh.

Two advocates Santokh Singh Gil and Hari Mohan Singh Pal

stated on affidavits that Sri Saini came from a respectable

family and was known for his cool temper and good manners.

Some of the deponents later disowned the statements in the

affidavits; and another affidavit was filed on behalf of the

respondent stating that this was the result of an attempt by

the other side to win over the witnesses through the police.

This allegation has been denied by the police witnesses M.S.

Bhuller and Narender Pal Singh.

592

17. So far the case of the respondent about the actual

incident is concerned, he has narrated his version in sever-

al affidavits filed in this proceeding. With respect to what

actually happened soon after 1.00 p.m. on 24.11.1982, he

admits that there was some unpleasant incident, but the

story given out by Chairman and the other Members is incor-

rect. It is claimed that it was a minor affair which was

later blown out of proportion with a view to harm him and

get the post occupied by him vacated. Mr. Mittal has con-

tended that if it were not so, the newspapers would have

reported the story immediately after 24.11.1982, but the

incident was not reported in any paper before 11.12,. 1982

when the daily newspaper "Indian Express" for the first time

stated that it was a case of heated exchange between the

Chairman and the respondent outside the Committee Room. The

report has been fully quoted in the respodent's reply which

further stated that some Members and employees of the Com-

mission were witness to the angry exchange and although the

Chairman refused to talk on the issue, her husband when

contacted, described the incident as a minor one. The state-

ments of the respondent as to what exactly happened may be

at this stage considered. According to his reply sent to the

Chief Secretary, the Chairman was expressing her displeasure

on his absence on the previous two days and was insisting

that an application should have been submitted and sanction

obtained from her in advance. This part of the respondent's

statement has been quoted in paragraph 12 above. The re-

spondent reminded her of the decision taken by tile Commis-

sion in July 1981 to the contrary and told her that if she

wanted to overrule the decision she should say so in writ-

ing. This reply agitated her and she lost temper and was

going to attack him with a raised hand which he caught to

avoid the attack. Besides this, he did not do anything else.

The other Members who were a little behind, reached the

place where this incident happened, later. Some candidates

who had come for interview and some members of the office

staff intervened and separated them. In his subsequent

affidavit filed before this Court the respondent however

said in paragraph 1 that the reference had been made "on an

allegation against the deponent which as a fact never oc-

curred and what was only a heated exchange of words between

the deponent and the Chairman of the Public Service Commis-

sion, Punjab on 24.11. 1982 at about 1.15 p.m. has been

blown out of proportion by the interested parties for secur-

ing their personal ends." The respondent then quoted the

report which appeared in the "Indian Express" mentioning

only the heated exchange- Towards the end of paragraph 3 of

his affidavit he further argued that, "if it was actually a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 22

case of physical assault like "slapping" a dignitary like a

Chairman of an august body i.e. the Commission, the reporter

could not have ignored

593

that fact just to report it as a "minor" incident and only

as "heated exchange". This is not consistent with either his

earlier statement or with the detailed account mentioned in

the affidavit where he once more stated that he "noticed one

hand of the Chairman going high up in the air and the depo-

nent, with the state of mind that he was in at that time

after a humiliating interrogation by the Chairman, thought

that the raised hand of the Chairman might not come upon the

deponent as a blow and as such the deponent just intercepted

that raised hand of the Chairman by raising his own hand and

bringing her raised hand down by that effort." The respond-

ent, however, is not emphatic in claiming that the Chairman

had really intended any physical harm or insult to him by

her raised hand. The following statement in his affidavit is

relevant in this connection:

"If the Chairman really intended to give a blow to the

deponent by her raised hand then the deponent was fully

justified to make an attempt at warding off that intended

blow to save himself from further humiliation publicly and

if the raised hand of the Chairman was not intended for a

blow at me but was only an involuntary mannerism on her part

in that moment of her great excitement induced by her own

self by a mistaken belief in her own importance being de-

flated by a supposed subordinate in authority then also the

deponent's action was justified by the attending circum-

stances when nothing but an ill motive on the part of the

Chairman could be conjectured and concluded in that moment

of confusion, on the part of the deponent".

18. The main witnesses of the unfortunate incident are

the Chairman, the respondent and the remaining three Members

of the Commission, and they are consistent about a physical

impact between the.Chairman and the respondent. The other

witnesses relied upon by the respondent who denied any

physical contact between them cannot be believed, and we do

not propose to discuss their evidence at length. Dr. Vinod

Gupta and Dr. Satyadev Saini asserted in their affidavits

that the Chairman was shouting at the respondent and there-

after went to her room. Dr. Saini described the tone of the

Chairman as insulting. He said that after the intervention

of some persons, she went to her room. Even the respondent

does not simplify the entire happening as the two doctors

have attempted to do. They appear to have been biased

against the Chairman and were making false statement to

protect the respondent. Dr. Gupta in his cross-examination

insisted that although he was getting only a stipend for the

house-job and was

594

anxious to get a service, he and his colleague Dr. Saini

decided to travel to Delhi, engage a lawyer and pay for the

affidavits that were filed. The claim is that they were

doing it as members of the public in response to call for

justice, but their statements in cross-examination expose

their hostile attitude towards the Chairman- We have no

hesitation in rejecting their evidence as unreliable. The

affidavits of the other persons and their evidence do not do

any credit to them and we will close this chapter by reject-

ing their statements as undependable. The main issue with

respect to the actual incident must, therefore, be decided

on a consideration of the affidavits of the respondent, and

the affidavits and evidence of the Chairman anal the other

three Members of the Commission in their cross-examination-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 22

So far the respondent is concerned, he first decided to

examine himself as a witness but later declined to do so.

After the case was closed by the Additional District and

Sessions Judge an application was made on his behalf stating

that he had changed his mind and that he was on his way to

the Court for being examined as a witness, but somehow his

arrival was delayed. The Additional District and Sessions

Judge did not reopen the matter and we think rightly. We do

not believe that the respondent had really intended to

appear as a witness to be cross-examined and the belated

application was filed merely by way of an excuse. the re-

spondent was within his rights not to appear in the proceed-

ing as a witness, specially because on the allegation made

against him he was entitled to consider himself in the

position of an accused in a criminal case. But he should

have boldly taken this stand in the proceeding and should

not have vacillated from one stand to another and from one

excuse to another from time to time. As a respectable member

of the Bar and as a Member of the Public Service Commission

one would expect from him a straight forward approach and we

do not appreciate his attempt to invent an alibi.

19. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that

the issue must be examined in the background of the circum-

stances indicating a deep conspiracy to oust the respondent

from the Commission hatched out at the instance of the Chief

Minister by the Chairman and others. Reliance was placed on

the affidavit of his wife Smt. Krishna Chaudhary (who has

been referred to during the hearing as Smt. Krishna so as to

avoid the confusion between her name and the name of the

Chairman) which was filed along with the main affidavit of

the respondent. She is a social worker and has been render-

ing public service in various capacities detailed in her

affidavit. She has stated about her visit to the residence

of the Chief Minister, Sri Darbara Singh, in the company of

her husband and the Chairman. She says that

595

on seeing her and her husband the Chief Minister lost his

cool and declared that the Public Service Commission would

be dissolved. From the manner in which the attack proceeded,

it was clear to her that the "outburst was directed against

her husband", the present respondent. At the end of the

meeting the Chief Minister asked the respondent to align

with the Chairman and follow her instructions. She has

described another incident when she had to face the wrath of

the Chief Minister earlier. She was espousing the cause of

certain villagers and in that connection led a delegation to

the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi. The Prime Minister

after giving n patient hearing to her, sent a telex massage

to the Chief Minister instructing him to do the needful, and

accordingly Sri Darbara Singh paid a visit to the village in

question in March 1981. There he made a pointed inquiry from

the villagers as to who had led and prompted them to go to

the Prime Minister instead of approaching him. When he

learnt that it was Smt. Krishna who had gone to the Prime

Minister with their case, the Chief Minister shouted at her

expressing his deep displeasure. She appeared before the

Additional District and Sessions judge for cross-examina-

tion. Her deposition in the case attempted to evade many

questions which she thought would show her in bad light.

Asked about her unsuccessful attempt to get a party ticket

for the election to the State Assembly, she first stated

that she had never made an application, but later she had to

correct it by accepting that she had asked for the party

ticket from Anandpur Saheb Constituency which was refused.

From the evidence on the record it is clear that members of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 22

both the families of the respondent and his wife's father

have been respectable Congressmen of Punjab, and their

presence in the public life of the State cannot be ignored.

But when Smt. Krishna was asked about various details of her

association in the political field she did not come out with

straight forward answers. She had been arrested and put in

custody for about 2 months during the Janata Party regime in

the country in 1977-1979 along with Sri Darbara Singh and

several other Congress workers. With a view to evade the

questions which were being put to her about her company and

the manner in which she conducted herself during that peri-

od, she first said that she did not recollect when she

underwent the imprisonment and that the other persons men-

tioned by the cross-examining lawyer "might have been" also

there. Another line which was pursued in her cross-examina-

tion was about her and her husband's financial position.

About receiving donations for social work, she claimed that

she stopped collecting donations after her husband became a

Member of the Public Service Commission. Several questions

were asked about the income of her husband from his law

practice as well as that derived from his ancestral proper-

ties but she evaded to give the necessary

596

information. She said that she did not have any idea as to

the extent of the family properties and the income available

therefrom. Nor could she say whether her husband was paying

income-tax or not before he became a Member of the Commis-

sion. However, pursued further she had to admit that the

income from the properties could not be substantial. We are

not here concerned with the actual properties belonging to

the respondent or his income, but the manner in which Smt.

Krishna answered the questions put to her in her cross-

examination becomes relevant as it shows that she did not

have unflinching respect for truth and that she is capable

of making a statement which may suit her. Reliance has also

been placed on the affidavits of several other persons in

support of her story about the threat publicly given to her

by the Chief Minister. For the reasons briefly indicated

below they also cannot be believed.

20. One of the affidavits supporting the version of Smt.

Krishna was by Labh Singh filed in this Court along with the

counter affidavit of the respondent. The affidavit runs in

five paragraphs and the deponent mentioned several dates in

relation to the incident on five occasions, but in his

cross-examination he conceded that he was totally illiterate

except for putting his signature in Urdu, and that he had no

idea about the English calendar month either, which has been

used in his affidavit. In his affidavit he has described the

present case correctly as a reference under Article 3 17(1)

of the Constitution. But in his cross-examination he admit-

ted his complete ignorance about the Constitution as also

about the nature of the present proceeding. When a pointed

question was asked in this regard, he said that what he

meant to say in the counter affidavit was that Sri Darbara

Singh was a liar. He had also to say that he did not know

what was typed in the affidavit. His statements clearly

indicate that he was under the influence of the respondent

and his wife and was lending his name to the affidavit

without having any idea of its contents. He does not have

any respect for truth as indicated by his contradictory

statements made in regard to his alleged relationship with

the respondent and about the alleged incidents in which Sri

Darbara Singh is said to have given an open public threat to

Smt. Krishna. Identical affidavits sworn by Bakshish Singh,

Mahinder Singh and Sarwan Singh were also filed. Sarwan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 22

Singh was also cross-examined at considerable length and his

statements are equally undependable. He was Sarpanch for

sometime and was attached to the family of the respondent

for decades. He admitted his association with Smt. Krishna

for 25-30 years. Another person by the name of Niranjan

Singh claimed to have been a witness of the threat by Sri

Darbara Singh. The witness was cross-examined at

597

length. He has not faired better than the others. We are not

impressed by the affidavits of the others, and we do not

consider it necessary to deal with their evidence individu-

ally except mentioning that there has been some controversy

as to whether there was an attempt on the part of the Chair-

man through the State Police authorities to influence the

witnesses. Affidavits and counter affidavits have been filed

by the parties in support of their respective stands. None

of these affidavits inspires confidence. Sri Darbara Singh

has filed his affidavit denying all the allegations made

against him about his annoyance with Smt. Krishna and the

alleged threat to her; or his prejudice to the respondent

and complicity in any conspiracy. He stated that Smt. Krish-

na never saw him nor did he receive any direction or message

from the Prime Minister in regard to any grievance of the

villagers and there was no question of his having threatened

Smt. Krishna. He appeared as a witness and was cross-exam-

ined at length. His deposition is at pages 8 13-879 of Vol.

V of the paper book, portion of which was read by the

learned counsel for the parties during the hearing. A large

number of questions in regard to the internal politics of

the Congress Party in Punjab were put to him. It was sug-

gested that he and Giani Zial Singh were heading two rival

factions of the Congress Party. The Chief Minister evaded

such questions by saying that there is a single Congress

Party known as Congress(I). We do not consider his reluc-

tance to discuss the internal matter of the Party as unnatu-

ral and we cannot draw any inference against him on that

account. There is nothing in his deposition indicating that

his denial of the allegations made against him by the re-

spondent and his wife is not worthy of acceptance. The story

of his outburst against the respondent in presence of other

persons and against Smt. Krishna in the presence of a large

number of villagers is neither natural nor supported by the

circumstances; and the evidence led is wholly undependable.

For this conclusion we are not depending on the evidence of

the Chairman with respect to the alleged interview when Sri

Darbara Singh is said to have expressed his displeasure to

Sri Saini.

21. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that

the complaint petition of the Chairman and the joint letter

of the other three members of the Commission were not draft-

ed at Patiala and came into existence later at Chandigarh

after a deliberation by all the collaborators of the con-

spiracy. As has been mentioned earlier, the argument is that

while the Governor was away on leave, the matter should have

awaited his return and should not have been rushed through

by sending the complaint to the President of India for

immediate action. It has also been said that the issue was

not placed

598

even before the Cabinet before taking these steps and it was

only belatedly that a post facto resolution in this regard

was got passed by the Cabinet. We have given our anxious

consideration to all these aspects and we do not find any

merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the re-

spondent that the theory of conspiracy is fit to be accept-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 22

ed. We, therefore, reject the case of Sri G.K. Saini of a

conspiracy to get him removed from the office of a Member of

the Commission.

22. The main question is as to whether the allegation of

the Chairman about Sri Saini giving her a slap is correct or

not. Smt. Chowdhary was cross-examined for several weeks and

her statement is at pages 1-181 in Vol. III of the paper

book. Her family and the family of her husband are quite

respectable and have been taking keen interest in the State

politics. Her father became a Member of the Rajya Sabha in

1975. Earlier he was a Deputy Minister in the erstwhile

State of Papsu and later of Punjab. Her father-in-law was

also a Member of the Lok Sabha since 1980. Earlier he was a

Member of the State Assembly for several decades. The Chair-

man was married in 1968, passed her B.Ed. examination in

1971 and soon thereafter became a Member of the Public

Service Commission. Mr. Mittal contended that she was an

inexperienced young person not well-equipped for work of the

Commission, muchless for the office of the Chairman and was

pushed forward because of her connections with the Congress

Party. It has been suggested by the learned counsel that her

father or some other member of her family must have been

instrumental in getting the present Reference made, but we

do not find any reason to assume so and we will have to

judge her statement independent of this consideration. We

also accept her case that she was not a tool in the hands of

Sri Dabara Singh and did not take any step at his behest or

with a view to please him..

23. The evidence in the case, however, does indicate

that the Chairman was attempting to exercise her power in an

authoritarian manner and lost her patience even with her

colleagues if she was not readily obeyed. She claims that it

is the prerogative of the Chairman of the Commission to

announce the results of interviews with candidates but as a

matter of grace she consulted her colleagues before so

doing. On more than one occasion in the past she got annoyed

with the other Members and attempted to get them removed

from the Commission. In their letter to the Governor of

Punjab Sri Mitha, the then Member of the Commission, and Sri

Deol detailed the misbehavior on her part and alleged that

she was in the habit of threatening the Members to

599

accept her commands whether right or wrong, while boasting

of being capable to get any Member, who did not obey her,

removed and otherwise harassed. In paragraph 24 of his

affidavit Sri Saini has stated that Smt. Chowdhary had made

a complaint against Sri Mitha and Sri Deol to the Governor

raising untenable charges, but the Governor in his wisdom

admonished her for the frivolous nature of the charges. In

her reply to the said statement Smt. Chowdhary argued that

the incident was not relevant for the purpose of the present

inquiry, but in dealing with the factual aspect she did not

deny its correctness. In his cross-examination Sri Deol

stated how two years earlier, when he was also absent for a

couple of days, the Chairman sent him a note telling him

that he had absented without prior information, and to which

he had reacted by a query about the rule in this regard.

Ultimately the matter had to be discussed in a "meeting or

the Members". Sri Saini has also asserted in his affidavits

that a decision was taken on this issue in a meeting of the

Members of the Commission, but the Chairman still continued

to deal with the question of absence of the Members in her

own way. So far as the complaint of Sri Mitha and Sri Deol

to the Governor against Smt. Chowdhary is concerned, the

prevaricative answers given by her during this part of her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 22

cross-examination leave an indelible impression that she

does not associate any merit with being frank and straight

forward. She however admitted that sometime in November,

1980 she had made a complaint against Sri Mitha and Sri Deol

to the Governor (page 74, Vol- III of the paper book). She

further stated that she was not. given a copy of the com-

plaint made against her, but she had to accept that around

February 1982 when she and the other Members of the Commis-

sion met the Governor on an invitation by the latter for a

cup of tea, Sri Mitha complained that whenever she was

personally on an Interview Board and an expert had to be

appointed, she would never consult the other Members. Ac-

cording to her version the Governor upheld her stand by

declaring that it was her prerogative as the Chairman of the

Commission. The manner in which she contradicted herself on

matters of details about the said complaint reinforces the

conclusion that not all her testimony can be taken at its

face value. However, that does not conclude the case. The

other three Members of the Commission have pledged their

oath in support of the allegation that the respondent had

slapped the Chairman. The circumstances in which the things

proceeded also corroborated their version. Over and above

all this, the statements made by the respondent himself go

to support to a great extent Smt. Chowdhary's case of physi-

cal assault. Let us now consider the evidence of Sri Brar,

Sri Deol and Sri Lall.

600

24. Mr. Brar had served the Indian Army for 38 years

before he retired as a Major General. He was the General

Officer Commanding, Punjab, Himachal and Haryana, and there

is no ground for doubting his verasity as a witness. Mr.

Deol was the Head of the Department of Political Science at

G.H.G. Khalsa College, Ludhiana before his appointment as a

Member of the Commission, and appears to be a reliable

person. According to the case of the respondent, Mr. Deol

had himself earlier protested against the manner of func-

tioning of the Chairman which in his opinion amounted to

misbehaviour. The Chairman also had made a complaint against

him to the Governor on the basis of some frivolous charges.

It cannot, therefore, be legitimately suggested that he was

either such a close friend of the Chairman or under her

thumb so as to concoct a story and send a letter to the

Governor immediately after the unfortunate incident. Al-

though many suggestions were thrown to him and to Mr. Brar

in their crossexamination for the purpose of an argument

that they should be disbelieved, we do not find any sub-

stance therein. We are satisfied that what prompted them to

act in the present case was not their interestedness in the

Chairman or any prejudice against the respondent, but their

disapproval and shock at the physical violence in which the

respondent indulged in the open corridor of the Commission

building. So far as Mr. Lal is concerned, in the opinion of

Sri Saini, he did not have requisite qualification for being

appointed as a Member. According to the case of the respond-

ent, Mr. Lall may have been prejudiced against him on ac-

count of his (respondent's) view on Sri Lall's eligibility

to hold the office, but that does not explain his conduct in

joining the other two Members in their complaint against Sri

Saini.

25. Mr. Mittal elaborately dealt with the direct evi-

dence of the incident and urged that there were discrepan-

cies in the statements of these three witnesses sufficient

to discredite their testimony. We are not in a position to

agree with him and we proceed to briefly indicate our rea-

sons.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 22

26. Let us now consider the evidence with respect to the

details of the incident. Admittedly the Chairman, the re-

spondent and the other three Members of the Commission were,

in the Committee room on 24.11. 1982, interviewing candi-

dates for appointment to certain posts. The sitting contin-

ued till about 1.15 p.m. when all the aforesaid five persons

along with Dr. P.R. Sondhi (Retired Director, Haryana Health

Service), who was assisting the Commission as an expert,

came out of the Committee Room through the doors opening

into the-cor-

601

ridor. A plan of the building has been placed on the records

of this case. Admittedly the entire party of six started

moving in the same direction towards the office of the

Chairman. The Chairman indicated her intention to talk to

Sri Saini about his absence, in privacy; and the two pro-

ceeded further, forming a separate group, and the other

Members discretely slowed down their pace. Dr. P.R. Sondhi

has not appeared as a witness in the case. When the respond-

ent and the Chairman were near the doors of the office of

the Chairman, the physical act of the incident took place.

Earlier the Chairman had expressed her displeasure on the

absence of Sri Saini. Sri Saini insisted that he had in-

formed the office in advance, and that she must put in

writing whatever she had to say. According to the evidence

of the Chairman, she asked Sri Saini as to what was there to

put in writing and she was going to complete the sentence by

adding that she would put in writing whatever Sri Saini

would suggest, but before she could do so, she received from

Sri Saini a hard slap across her face. She says that this

happened when she was politely talking to Sri Saini. We are

not inclined to accept her statement that the respondent had

slapped her "without any provocation" as stated in her

complaint petition and in her first affidavit filed before

this Court, and that she was talking to him "politely" as

mentioned in her cross-examination. The version of the

respondent with respect to the manner in which she was

asking for his explanation may be correct. She was used to

her arrogant ways and authoritarian manner while talking

even with her colleagues, and hence the statement of Sri

Saini may be correct that she was assuming a "bossy posture"

and "was insisting on a spot oral explanation" from him. The

respondent was a lawyer of 17 years standing when he was

appointed a Member of the Commission. The evidence does not

indicate that he was schizophrenic, prone to be excited

without a cause and it would therefore be very unnatural to

assume. that although the Chairman was talking to him po-

litely and did not give any reason for provocation whatsoev-

er the respondent hit her.

27. All the three Members of the Commission are unani-

mous and emphatic in stating that the respondent did slap

the Chairman hard on her face. They also say that this was

without provocation. By this part of their statement we

understand that there was no physical provocation on the

part of the Chairman. Mr. Mittal, the learned counsel for

the respondent, strenuously contended that their evidence

also suggest that the Chairman was not talking rudely or in

a bossy manner with the respondent when the latter hit her,

and this is very unnatural. We have gone through their

affidavits as well as their statements in the cross-examina-

tion. The affidavit and evidence of each of

602

these witnesses have to be considered in their totality and

a part of a sentence in their deposition cannot be allowed

to be picked up in isolation and analysed and scanned as a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 22

statutory provision. In their joint letter written to the

Governor soon after the incident they stated thus:

"Mr. G.K. Saini was walking ahead with Mrs. Santosh Chowd-

hary, the Chairman. She was apparently inquiring from him

about his absence from the interviews on the previous two

days". (emphasis supplied)

Sri Brar was asked in his cross-examination about the use of

the word "apparently" and he explained that while discussing

the general details of the conversation Sri Lal and Sri Deol

were not sure of having heard the first portion of conversa-

tion. Sri Deol stated that the Chairman asked Sri Saini to

come ahead and therefore they, that is, the other Members,

slowed down in their pace. In the statement recorded by the

Chief Secretary, Sri Lall also said that the Chairman and

the respondent were walking ahead and they "over-heard" the

Chairman. The picture which emerges is that the talk between

the Chairman and the respondent was not meant for others and

they were not talking very loudly. It is, therefore, not

expected that the Members could hear every single word which

passed between the two. If their voice was not raised and

they were not shouting at each other, one would not assume

that there was a quarrel going on. In this background the

Members in their joint letter used the word "apparently".

Their statement that the attack on the Chairman was without

any provocation was based on the physical side of the entire

incident and was an expression of opinion with regard to it.

Although, however, they could not hear their talk properly,

which was going on not in high-pitched or raised voice, it

cannot be suggested that they were not in a position to

watch as to what the two were actually doing. It was day

time and from the plan which is on the records of the case

it is clear that the place where all this was happening was

not poorly lighted. The total distance between the Committee

Room and the office of the Chairman was 66 feet and the

distance between the two groups could not be so long so as

to place the Members of the Commission as not to be sure

about the physical activities of the two ahead. Their im-

pression as to what they actually saw cannot be confused

with what they could make out of the discussion going on

between the two. The consistent evidence also indicates that

the Chairman and Sri Saini were walking ahead while ap-

proaching the office room and before the assault took place

they had reached the door and were standing there. The

witnesses, however, did not stop

603

and continued walking towards the Chairman and the respond-

ent. The suggestion of Mr. Mittal, appearing on behalf of

the respondent, that if they could not hear the talk going

on between the parties properly, they could also not see the

physical side of the incident cannot be accepted. The three

witnesses were cross-examined at great length and were

subjected to a very large number of searching questions, and

we do not find any material coming out of the same on the

basis of which they can be discredited. We accordingly rely

upon their evidence which indicates that although they were

not able to properly hear the talk going on between the

Chairman and Sri Saini and picked up only fragments of

discussion, they clearly watched their physical activities

without any chance of mistake. Their version of the physical

part of the incident must, therefore, be accepted which is

to a great extent corroborated by the respondent's state-

ments and the affidavits themselves. Accordingly, we hold

that the Chairman did not attack or intimidate Sri Saini

with physical violence, and Sri Saini losing his self-con-

trol at the arrogance of the Chairman in her talk with him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 22

slapped her as alleged.

28. It has been contended by Mr. Mittal that from the

evidence of Sri Brar and Sri Lall it appears that their

group almost reached the point where the Chairman and Sri

Saini were standing and except for a very short distance

between the two groups they ultimately formed one single

group in which the relative position of the Chairman and Sri

Saini was such, as stated by Mr. Lall in his cross-examina-

tion, that it was not possible for the respondent to hit the

Chairman hard on her face. For the basis on which any such

inference can be drawn, one has to indulge in a lot of

imagination. The statements relied upon do not lead to this

conclusion. Besides, the description given by the three

witnesses in this regard cannot be scanned with a micro-

scope nor the available evidence is sufficient to determine

with geometrical precision the exact points where everybody

stood at the crucial moment. So far the version of Sri Saini

is concerned, we agree with him that it was not a completely

unprovoked situation in which he had hit the Chairman. But

we do not accept his statement as correct that the provoca-

tion was not limited to a verbal duel and extended to the

Chairman raising her hand as if to assault him, justifying

him to slap her.

29. Mr. Mittal has also relied upon certain circum-

stances which according to him disproved the case of the

complainant. Great emphasis has been led on the statement of

Smt. Chowdhary's husband to the Press describing the inci-

dent as a minor one. This is a natural conduct. If a lady

occupying the high position of a Chairman of a Public Serv-

ice

604

Commission is physically assaulted, it is expected that

people closely related to her and interested in maintaining

her high dignity would like to hush-up the matter rather

than give it a wide publicity. It is, therefore, not possi-

ble to discredit the story of assault on the basis of the

newspaper report. It has been next argued that having regard

to the incident taking place in the open corridor of the

building and the position of the room or the rooms where the

members of the staff sit, it was to be expected that at

least some members of the staff must have witnessed what had

happened but none has come as a witness to support the

allegation. This also is not an unexpected conduct on their

part. There is nothing unnatural if they decided not to

involve themselves in their individual capacities in a

dispute of this nature. Besides, there is a resolution on

the record of this proceeding passed by the members of the

staff collectively condemning the incident in general terms.

It has been suggested on behalf of the respondent that this

has been obtained by the Chairman by exercising her influ-

ence. If some of the employees of the Commission had come to

the witness box, the same criticism would have been made by

the respondent against their evidence. We are also conscious

of the fact that Sri Sondhi who was assisting the Commission

as an expert has not been examined in the case. This merely

indicates that he was not willing or available to support

either party.

30. The consistent evidence of the three Members of the

Commission further indicates that an attempt to bring about

a reconciliation by persuading the respondent to tender an

apology was made but failed. The Chairman was under great

stress both physical and mental and she had to be consoled

by her colleagues. We would at this stage again emphasise

that no special reason can be suggested for the Members to

cook up a false story, specially when they had also earlier

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

tasted the arrogance of the Chairman, and complaints and

countercomplaints between her and at least one of them had

reached even the ears of the Governor.

31.

Now the question is whether Sri Saini deserved to be re-

moved on account of his conduct. Persons occupying high

public offices should maintain irreproachable behaviour. A

certain minimum standard of code of conduct is expected of

them. What may be excusable for an uneducated young man

cannot be tolerated if a Member of Public Service Commission

is involved. Besides, it has to be remembered that the

respondent and the Chairman were not thrashing out a person-

al matter or a private dispute. They were discussing a

question involving their office and this in broad-day-light

in the open corridor of

?

605

the Commission's building. Whatever the provocation offered

by the Chairman, the respondent was not justified in losing

his cool to the extent of indulging in physical violence.

That the violence should have been directed against a lady

makes his conduct all the more reprehensible. In our view,

Sri Saini miserably failed in maintaining the standard of

conduct expected of a Member of the Commission and thereby

brought great disrepute to his office. Hence our answer to

the question referred by the President is that Sri Saini's

conduct amounted to misbehavior within the meaning of Arti-

cle 317(1) of the Constitution and it rendered him liable to

be removed from his office of the Member of the Punjab

Public Service Commission.

N.P.V.

606