Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar held that the allegations of “misbehaviour” levelled against a Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission in a reference under Article 317(1) were not proved. In exercise of its advisory jurisdiction, the Court directed that its report and recommendation be sent to the President of India, recording that the charges did not bring about any act of “misbehaviour” for action within Article 317(1). The Bench further directed that the Member’s suspension be revoked forthwith and that she would be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits.

The matter arose from a Presidential Reference dated 18 April 2023 made to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India. The reference sought an inquiry and report as to whether a Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) ought to be removed on the ground of “misbehaviour,” following allegations linked to the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination held on 26 and 27 August 2022.

Also Read: Defects in Form 25 Affidavit on ‘Corrupt Practices’ Not Automatically Fatal | Supreme Court Remits Election Petition to Orissa High Court to Examine Substantial Compliance Under Representation of People Act

The respondent was appointed as a Member of APPSC on 12 August 2021 under Article 316(1) and assumed charge on 13 August 2021. At the time, APPSC comprised five Members including the Chairman. On 18 August 2021, the Chairman delineated the duties of each Member.

On 28 August 2022, a candidate submitted a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, Itanagar, alleging advance leakage of some questions for the Mains Examination in conspiracy with coaching institutes. The same candidate informed the APPSC Secretary on 29 August 2022 and sought a stay on declaration of the results until a thorough inquiry was conducted. An FIR was registered on 10 September 2022.

On 21 September 2022, the State Government constituted a three-member High-Level Inquiry Committee to probe irregularities in the Mains Examination. The Committee’s terms of reference were to inquire into the incident of leakage, adherence to standard operating procedures (SOP) for question paper setting and booklet design, lapses by officials, recommended process changes and modifications in selection of deputed officials, and any related issues. The Court recorded that from the inception “no specific term of reference was formulated in respect of the actions of the Chairman or Members of the APPSC.” The Committee submitted its report on 6 October 2022, noting lapses in the SOP and the APPSC Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017.

Meanwhile, on 14 October 2022, the APPSC Chairman resigned. After the Committee’s report was placed before the State Cabinet, the Advocate General opined on 27 October 2022 to invoke Article 317(1). The Chief Minister wrote to the Governor on the same day, and on 2 December 2022 the Governor requested the President of India to make a reference to the Supreme Court for initiation of proceedings under Article 317(1). Three members resigned on 27 and 31 October 2022, leaving the respondent as the sole remaining Member.

In the criminal investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet on 8 December 2022 and supplementary chargesheets on 30 January 2023 and 28 March 2023. The investigation disclosed that the Deputy Secretary-cum-Deputy Controller of Examinations was primarily responsible for the leakage, allegedly accepting monetary consideration and executing a scheme that involved tampering with sealed packets, copying papers, and resealing them with the assistance of a representative of the printing press. The respondent was not named as an accused.

On 18 April 2023, the President made the reference to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1) for removal of the respondent on six charges, which were reproduced in the judgment. These included allegations that the respondent, with others, failed to prevent the leak and ensure confidentiality; that multiple question papers since 2017 were susceptible to leakage requiring changes in guidelines; that timely remedial action through guideline changes could have averted the 2022 leak; that as the Member in charge of legal matters she bore an “exclusive responsibility” to ensure confidentiality; that the Commission failed to finalise the 2022 conduct guidelines; and that she ought to have advised against keeping punishment orders in abeyance.

Following the reference, the respondent was placed under suspension on 15 June 2023 by the Governor under Article 317(2). Upon receiving the reference, notice issued to the Attorney General for India, the Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, and the respondent. The respondent filed a written statement on 2 November 2023. On 3 November 2023, the Court directed exchange of points for determination. On 7 February 2024, a joint statement of issues agreed by both sides and settled by the Attorney General for India was submitted. On 16 February 2024, the Court framed four issues, including whether the respondent’s conduct amounted to “misbehaviour,” whether the charges were vague, whether questions of non-application of mind could be raised, and whether all charges were proved. The Registrar (Judicial) recorded evidence pursuant to order dated 9 July 2024; this concluded on 20 September 2024, and the reference was placed for hearing.

During the hearing, the Bench sought clarification regarding member-wise allocation of duties. APPSC produced the work assignment order dated 18 August 2021. The order shows that recruitment relating to Assistant Engineer (Civil) was assigned to Major General (Retd.) Jarken Gamlin (Member-III), while the respondent was assigned, inter alia, “Law & Judicial,” “All legal matters including (PILs),” and related subjects. The Court recorded that when asked how the respondent, being in charge of legal matters, was “exclusively responsible” for revising the 2017 Guidelines, nothing was produced to substantiate that claim. An additional affidavit dated 17 March 2025 admitted that no document clarified specific duties of a Member and that no Member was solely assigned the task of revising the 2017 Guidelines.

The Court then examined the Inquiry Committee’s report and State-level correspondence. It recorded that the report did not impute any personal act or omission to the respondent constituting misbehaviour, and further noted that the State’s letters pressed for reconstitution of the Commission while imputing responsibility to Members despite the absence of such findings in the report.

On the evidence, including witness testimony and the allocation of functions under the SOP and guidelines, the Court proceeded charge-wise. It found that nothing on record substantiated connivance or negligence by the respondent in relation to the paper leak, and that the confidential aspects of examination processes were handled by the examination wing under the SOP and the 2017 Guidelines. It also found that the allegations concerning guideline changes and collective responsibility were either vague or unsupported by specific duties assigned to the respondent.

Addressing the Inquiry Committee’s report, the Bench recorded the absence of any individualised allegation against the respondent. “We have perused the report of the Inquiry Committee in its entirety; however, we do not find any specific act or omission of any Member of APPSC which has been pointed out in the report.” It further stated that the report did not make “any allegations indicating illegality or any act or omission on the part of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage… purportedly constituting her misbehaviour.”

In relation to Charge I (leakage of question papers), the Court referred to the record and the Committee’s findings about the distribution of functions. It noted that the work of paper setting and moderating was allocated in accordance with SOP, and that no material was produced to establish the respondent’s connivance or responsibility to prevent the leak. “As per Chapter 7 of the report of the Inquiry Committee, it is clear that the allocation of work relating to question paper setting and moderating was done following the SOP of the APPSC… Hence, the entire report does not impute any allegation or personal indictment… which would indicate even her negligence.”

The Court summarised the witness depositions relevant to Charge I, noting that neither the Section Officer nor other witnesses attributed specific leakage-related duties to the respondent. It recorded that even the witness who asserted “overall supervision” admitted in cross-examination that it was his personal opinion. “In the criminal proceedings also, neither she has been made accused, nor anything has been indicated regarding her involvement in paper setting, moderating or leakage of any question paper. As such… Charge No. I… has not been proved.”

Turning to Charges II, III and V (guideline changes and remedial measures), the Bench examined whether the respondent bore an individual obligation to effect revisions since 2017 or to finalise the 2022 draft guidelines. It recorded the respondent’s appointment date and the lack of assignment of specific duties requiring unilateral action to change guidelines. “There is no evidence to prove that the Respondent had the sole responsibility to consider all these issues and consider bringing changes in the guidelines… In our view, this charge is completely vague.” The Court further stated that “it would be a stretch to claim that bringing about new guidelines… would be the sole responsibility of the Respondent… [and] even more conjectural to claim that the Respondent by her actions actively prevented the Commission from bringing about fresh guidelines.” It concluded that “both the charges are not proved.”

On Charge IV (collective responsibility and alleged “exclusive responsibility” arising from legal-matters allocation), the Bench called for and reproduced the APPSC’s work-allotment order dated 18 August 2021, and then recorded its finding. “Upon reading the work allotment order… it is clear that… the matter relating to the recruitment of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was assigned to Major General Jarken Gamlin… and Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage was assigned the work relating to ‘Law & Judicial’ and ‘All legal matters including (PIL)’… When learned counsel for the APPSC was further asked to show how the Respondent… was exclusively responsible for revising 2017 Guidelines, in reply, nothing was placed on record to prove the said allegation.” The Court added that in an additional affidavit dated 17 March 2025, “no member of the Commission was solely or exclusively assigned the task of revising the 2017 Guidelines.”

On Charge VI (keeping punishment orders in abeyance), the Bench recorded the circumstances in which the Commission deferred its earlier decision and treated the action as quasi-judicial.

“Passing an order by the Commission to keep the punishment in abeyance is a discharge of quasi-judicial function… Even a wrong decision taken bona-fide… would not in any manner fall within the definition of ‘misbehaviour’.” It added that not advising individually contrary to a collective decision would not amount to a lapse.

The Court then considered State-level correspondence urging reconstitution of APPSC and assessed whether those communications supported the charges. It stated that the letters “impute responsibility… upon the members of the Commission even though there was no such finding in the Inquiry Report,” and that the State dealt with the matter “with a prejudice… without sufficient material or evidence.”

In a broader statement of principle, the Bench articulated the threshold for removal of constitutional office-holders and the protective intent of Article 317. “It is difficult to see how the allegation of ‘misbehaviour’… has been proved… [W]here the consequence of our fact-finding inquiry would be the removal… we must be abundantly cautioned and tread carefully.” It reiterated that Chapter 7 of the Inquiry Report, which formed the basis of the reference, made suggestions for improvement but “makes no adverse comment or personal indictment against the Respondent.”

Finally, noting the subsequent appointments of former Members after their resignations, the Court observed that if Members were “collectively involved,” the State’s action in entrusting new responsibilities to them “clearly goes to indicate that there was nothing… showing their indictment… which may prove misbehaviour.” It concluded that the State’s request to initiate removal was “arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory.”

Having concluded its fact-finding inquiry, the Bench issued its directions. It first recorded the dispositive finding that misbehaviour was not established: the Court stated that “the inescapable conclusion on the allegations of charges as made in the reference is that the allegations have not been proved.” It further recorded that “the charge of misbehaviour has not been proved against the Respondent,” and that the points of determination jointly framed by the parties stood answered accordingly.

Also Read: Orissa High Court: Low Vision Disability Not Eligible for Assistant Agriculture Engineer Posts | OPSC Bound by 2013 Notification Under Sections 32–33 PwD Act

Acting under Order XLIII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Article 317(1) of the Constitution, the Court directed transmission of its report and recommendation to the President of India, expressly stating that “this report with recommendation shall be sent to the Hon’ble President of India that the charges as alleged do not bring about any act of ‘misbehaviour’ by Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage for taking action within its contours.”

Consequent upon this conclusion, the Bench directed immediate revocation of the respondent’s suspension. “We further recommend that her suspension be revoked forthwith and she would be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits.” These directions formed part of the Court’s advisory report to be acted upon within the constitutional framework governing Article 317(1) references.

Case Title: In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1047
Case Number: Ref. U/A 317(1) No. 1 of 2023
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari; Justice Aravind Kumar