Hon'ble P. C. Verma, J. - (1.) BY means of instant writ petition petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.6.2008 and the letters/orders issued by the Vigilance Establishment Department in pursuance thereof dated 8.8.2008, 19.9.2008, 20.8.2008 and 22.8.2008 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1,2, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner in nut shell is that the petitioner No. 1 was at the relevant time Chairman of the Public Service Commission since 17th May, 2004 and petitioner No. 2 is a member of the Public Service Commission so are petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. On 27th June, 2008 the State Government passed an order initiating an inquiry against the functioning of the Commission and vigilance was to hold an open inquiry. THE petitioners challenged the order, copy of which was not given to them, and they came to know about the vigilance inquiry through a letter of the S.P. Vigilance dated 20th August, 2008. THE petitioners challenged the order of the State Government inter alia on the ground that the State Government has got no power to make any investigation regarding the conduct of the Chairman or the members of the Commission. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Advocate General, U.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri R.N.Singh Sr.Advocate, Sri P.S.Bhagel Sr.Advocate submitted that in the Constitution there is a specific provision which is contained in Part- XIV Chapter II with regard to Public Service Commissions. Articles 315 and 323 deals with various powers of the Commission. There is a specific provision, which is contained in Article 317 which speaks about how misbehaviour of a member of the commission or chairman will be conducted. The question as to how the inquiry will be held is provided in the aforesaid Article and this question has also been subject matter of various decisions of the Apex Court. The leading case on the point is reported in 1983 SCC (4) 258. It has been clearly held that even the president cannot hold a preliminary inquiry to satisfy himself as to whether the members of the Commission should or should not be proceeded with. The powers to hold an inquiry exclusively vest in the Apex Court. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment clinches the issue, which is involved. The Apex Court has emphasized that these provisions and procedures have been made for holding an inquiry against the members of the Commission to prevent from any political interference. It has further been observed by the Apex Court that the members of the Public Service Commissions are in one sense given a higher degree of protection by elimination as far as possible, of political pressures in the matter of their removal. Any allegation of mis-behaviour made against them has to be examined by the Supreme Court on merits. Unlike the allegations made against those others whose removal on the ground of proved mis-behaviour or incapacity depends upon the will of the parliament. The terms mis-behaviour is very wide term. It includes in itself every thing that in the garb of vigilance inquiry, the State Government is intending to do.
(3.) IT is further, submitted that in the counter-affidavit the complaints received by the State Government have been forwarded to the U.P. Vigilance Establishment for making an open inquiry. The stand of the State Government is wholly untenable. As stated above the Apex Court has held that even the President cannot hold a preliminary inquiry for satisfying itself for making a reference to the Apex Court for holding an inquiry. IT is the Supreme Court alone which has been given exclusive jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry according to Rules framed under Article 145 of the Constitution of India against the members of the Commission and its Chairman. If the stand of the State is accepted, it will make the Public Service Commission as one of the department of the State Government. By this round about method they want to coerce the members of the Commission to suit their purpose. IT is well settled principles of law that if a procedure had been provided by law then that procedure has to be followed and all other procedures are forbidden by law. In this connection reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 1975 SC 915 -paragraph 25. IT has been held in the aforesaid case relying on an English decision in Taylor v. Taylor, that where power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This rule has stood the test of time and was accepted by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253. If that is not done the whole purpose of the legislature could be defeated. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the instant case there is a specific provision in the Constitution for holding an inquiry and taking proceedings against the members of the Commission and its Chairman that cannot be defeated by taking recourse to certain provision made by the State Government. The sole object for doing this was to embarrass the Chairman and the member and to humiliate them. It is not known as to what is the object of holding an open inquiry which has been described by the State Government as fact finding inquiry, If under the Constitution the State Government has no role in the removal of the Chairman or the members of the Commission, then it is not understood as to what purpose the so called inquiry is proposed to achieve. If somebody is aggrieved by the selections carried on by the Commission he has got a remedy to challenge the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the High Court. The State Government is not an appellate authority against the selections made by the Commission. Indirectly by this method they want to influence the decision of the Commission for which there is no justification. It is also pointed out that Ram Sewak Yadav Chairman has retired, but on the basis of this so called inquiry his retiral benefits have not been given so far. There are nine members of the Commission and the said inquiry is proposed to be held against only six persons i.e. Chairman and five members. All the action of the State Government is for a oblique purpose and only with a view to malign and humiliate the members of the Commission and the Chairman. Hence this writ petition.;