Supreme Court rejects Presidential Reference for removal of AP Public Service Commission member

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to remove Mepung Tadar Bage, Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), under Article 317(1) of the Constitution after finding that none of the charges levelled against her in the 2022 Assistant Engineer (Civil) paper leak had been proved [In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission].

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar gave its report in a Presidential Reference made following a recommendation from the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, who had acted on a letter from the Chief Minister.

With other members of the Commission having resigned, the Governor wrote to the President seeking Bage’s removal. The President referred the matter to the Supreme Court as required under Article 317 (removal or suspension of members of Public Service Commission).

The Court made it clear that the constitutional scheme does not permit removal on the basis of institutional failures alone.

“Removal on the ground of misbehaviour is individual and not collective in nature,” the Bench said, rejecting the Attorney General’s argument that the Commission as a body could be treated as responsible.

On the scope of Article 317, the Court stressed that while Public Service Commission members must maintain the highest standards of conduct, the expression “misbehaviour” cannot be stretched to cover every error or institutional lapse. Drawing from earlier rulings, the Court noted:

“Misconduct implies actuation of some degree of mens rea by the doer… Misbehaviour would extend to conduct which has the potential to destroy the faith in a public office,” the Court said.

But in the present case, the actions alleged against the respondent do not meet the threshold of ‘misbehaviour’, rather they do not even meet the threshold of ‘lapse’, the Bench made it clear.

On the evidence, the Court found that the process of paper setting and moderating was handled by examination officials and not by Bage. Allegations relating to irregularities from 2017 could not be fastened on her since she joined the Commission only in 2021.

The draft 2022 guidelines had been kept in abeyance by collective decision while a High-Level Committee of the State government was examining reforms.

Even the Commission’s decision to keep punishment orders against candidates using unfair means in abeyance was a quasi-judicial decision which, even if wrong, did not constitute misbehaviour, the Court held.

The Court concluded that the inquiry committee report itself did not record any individual indictment against Bage and the letters of the Chief Minister and Governor were based on general assumptions rather than specific findings.

“No overt act by her has been shown to meet the threshold of misbehaviour,” the Bench observed.

Accordingly, the Court directed that Bage’s suspension be revoked and that she be restored to office with all consequential and monetary benefits.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Senior Advocate Manish Goswami and advocates Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Raman Yadav, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Chitvan Cinghal and Kartikay Aggarwal appeared for petitioners.

Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and advocates Rituraj Biswas, Mayan Prasad, Anshula Grover, Chandan Kumar, Japneet Kaurn, Vriti Gujarat, Bikram Dwivedi, Aman Abhishek Bhardwaj, Sujana Barhani and Ananyo Roy appeared for respondents.

[Read Judgment]