S.Rajendra Babu, Arun Kumar, G.P.Mathur - (1.) THIS reference has been made by the President of India to this Court under Article 317 (1) of the Constitution of India seeking immediate suspension and removal of Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, former Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), by taking action against him levelling several allegations of grave misconduct and malpractices. In the reference, it is stated that the matter requires an examination by this Court in terms of Article 317 (1) of the Constitution. In the course of the letter sent by the Governor of Punjab to the President on 29th April, 2002, certain details as to the conduct of Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu while functioning as Chairman of the Commission are set out. There is also material placed before this Court in the nature of a report sent by the vigilance bureau to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab. It is not in dispute that criminal cases against the said Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu are pending in different Courts in the State of Punjab based on the allegations referred to in these two letters of the Governor of Punjab and the vigilance bureau.
(2.) AFTER the reference was received by this Court, notices were issued to the Attorney General of India, Advocate General for the State of Punjab, Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu and Secretary to the Commission. Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu was appointed as Chairman of the Commission on 9th September, 1996, for a period of six years and his term to function as Chairman of the Commission came to and end on 8th September, 2002, in terms of Article 316 (2) of the Constitution. On service of notice upon him, he took the stand that he had tendered his resignation from the office of Chairman of the Commission and an affidavit was also filed before this Court to that effect on 12th August, 2002. However, it was submitted before this Court by the then Solicitor General of India that the resignation submitted by Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu was not accepted by the Government and in this regard, arguments were addressed before this Court that the resignation becomes automatically effective once the provision of the proviso to Article 316 (2) is complied with, that is, by submitting resignation addressed to the Governor of the State. It is further submitted that the procedure prescribed under Article 316 of the Constitution provides for the manner in which the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission can resign from his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor and thus when this action has been put into play by the appointee, the said act of resignation is complete and becomes operative for the meaning of 'resign from his office' ; that the procedure envisaged under Article 316 (2) (a) cannot be deviated so as to make any other act not prescribed in the Constitution ; that the option to resign by the appointee is absolute and unilateral ; that on the mere fact of writing the resignation letter to the Governor, the resignation becomes final and is operative and effective immediately upon receipt of the same by the concerned addressee. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Union of India and others v. Gopal Chandra Misra and others, 1978 (2) SCC 301. It was also brought to our notice that this argument need not be considered by us in view of the fact that the term of the said Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu has already come to an end on 8th September, 2002. At this stage, arguments were raised on behalf of the State of Punjab that under the relevant provisions, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission may become entitled to certain retiral benefits and, therefore, relationship of master and servant may continue between the State of Punjab and Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu and, therefore, it becomes necessary to examine the question of removal of Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu from the office of Chairman of the Commission.
(3.) NOW, it is brought to our notice that Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu has ceased to hold the office of Chairman of the Commission on his term coming to an end and thus question of his removal from that office would not arise at all. In these circumstances, whether he would still continue to hold the office and whether he should be removed from that office does not assume any significance. In this regard, on behalf of Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, a memo has been filed in this Court which is in the following terms : "(1) That my client, Ravinder Pal Singh has ceased to hold the office of Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission. (2) That on the same allegations, prosecutions are pending against him in criminal courts. (3) That he gives up all claims to the retiral benefits including pension for the post of Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission. (4) That the above statement is made without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending legal proceedings in contend and establish that he is innocent." When this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Attorney General, he submitted that he would consider whether the instant reference made to this Court could be withdrawn or not. NOW, a submission is made that inasmuch as this reference has been made at the instance of the Government of Punjab, it is primarily for the State of Punjab, to make an appropriate statement in this regard. On behalf of the State of Punjab, a stand has been taken that merely because the tenure of office of Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu has come to an end does not mean that the matter should not be further examined on the reference made to this Court. The necessity to make a reference to this Court arises by reason of Article 317 of the Constitution which provides that the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission shall only be removed from his office by order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour after this Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf under Article 145, reported that the Chairman or such other member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground be removed. Therefore, the question for our consideration is whether Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, former Chairman of the Commission ought, on the ground of misbehaviour referred to in the course of the reference, to be removed from the office of the Chairman of the Commission. When an incumbent in office has ceased to hold the said office, the question of removing such a person from office would not arise at all.;