Reference under article 317(1) of the constitution of india
Devnandan Sharma
(Querist) 08 March 2014
This query is : Resolved
I was a member of Bihar Public Service Commission. Proceedings in respect of reference under Article 317(1) is going on against me with three charges, the first of which is as follows:
"1. That the Chairman, Dr. Ram Singhasan Singh, and Members, Dr. Shiv Balak Chaudhary and Dr. Deonandan Sharma of the said Commission misused their office and indulged in corrupt practices while making recommendations for selection of candidates in the First Limited Competitive Examination as detailed in the Vigilance Report No. 19/2005."
The Vigilance Report No. 19/2005 is an FIR against 13 persons and contains about 90 pages togetherwith 150 pages annexed thereto.
My question is as to whether there is any example of a charge of misconduct in the History of Law similar to the above charge which has been approved by a Court of Law to be a specific and definite charge against a particular person. If so, kindly give reference thereof.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 08 March 2014
query is vague. What exactly do you want to know?
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 09 March 2014
vague query.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 09 March 2014
Vague query, what do you want to know is not clear.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 09 March 2014
Article 317(1) states: Removal and suspension of a member of a Public Service Commission - The provision of law is : 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 misbehavior after the Supreme 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 to be removed.
Thus, with a given such a lengthy procedure, it is very difficult to remove or suspend a person so easily, wait and watch the development coolly, you will not get a very harsher result as the contents of the provisions of the article say.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 10 March 2014
I do endorse the advice of Kalaiselvan otherwise a vague query.
Devnandan Sharma
(Querist) 10 March 2014
Thanks. All the learned experts are making comments on the equerry. No one is interested to see how vague the charge is.
Guest
(Expert) 10 March 2014
Dear Devnandan,
The charge is vague or not cannot be judged or decided by any of the experts here that too merely on your own very brief description of 14 lines of your own interpretation, without going through the whole of the 240 pages of the charge sheet along with its annexures. About vagueness of the charge, you have to convince and satisfy the investigating authority first and thereafter the competent court.
However, if you want that the experts should endorse your own views that the charge is vague, and that can help you in any way to exonerate from the charge, that is another thing.
So, it is better if you take the help of some capable lawyer to analyse your case in its right perspective and represent that before the competent investigating authority and court.
Devnandan Sharma
(Querist) 11 March 2014
Sir
I simply want to know whether the manner in which the charge has been formulated is proper. Is it a proper way to furnish a charge to me by saying that I have misused office as stated in the FIR? Am I expected to go through the FIR and apply my own understanding to find out and collect the instances of misuse of office on my part as contemplated by the author of the charge and frame a complete charge against me? What is in the FIR is another matter. It might contain a charge but is it my duty to fish out the charge?
In my quarry I wanted to as to whether a charge can be furnished to me in which it alleged that I misused office and the manner in which I allegedly misused office has to be culled out by me from records.
Guest
(Expert) 11 March 2014
Dear Devnandan,
You very well know that manning such top level posts often depend upon likings or dislikings of political bosses, rather Godfathers a person is affiliated to. If one party appoints one favourite person, with the change of the Government the holder of the post becomes the target of revenge and is tried to be removed by leveling of charges, may be right or wrong, to post some favourite of the ruling party.
I don't know what would have happened in case of your posting or removal and the background of the charge, which you have also not discussed here.
The charge can be on account of misunderstanding or affiliation with some specific person or party, or may be due to flouting of the prescribed norms, rules and regulations by the holder of the post. So, without knowing the background of your posting, removal or the activities while holding the post with reference to the prescribed norms, rules and regulations meant to be observed by you, nobody can for amy opinion on your query, "whether a charge can be furnished to me in which it alleged that I misused office and the manner in which I allegedly misused office has to be culled out by me from records."
But one thing is certain, burden of proof lies on the prosecution. They have to prosecution has to prove the charge. But on your part, you need to scuttle down the charge by effective presentation on the merits of the case.
