A Reference Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, for Inquiry and Report on the Charges Leveled Against Dr. H.B. Mirdha, Chairman, Orissa Public Service Commission

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R.C. Lahoti
D.M. Dharmadhikari
G.P. Mathur
Judgment Date: 2005-08-05
Court Decision / Holding: Matter adjourned.
Final Disposition: Matter adjourned.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India

Respondents

Dr. H.B. Mirdha
Orissa Public Service Commission
State of Orissa

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Mohan Parasaran
• Gaurav Agrawal
• P. Parmeswaran

Counsels for Respondents

• Ms. Kiran Suri
• Himanshu Buttan
• Mali Santosh
• Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra
• Raj Kumar Mehta

Case Synopsis & Summary

This reference, under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, is initiated by the President to inquire into alleged misbehavior by Dr. H.B. Mirdha, then Chairman of the Orissa Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court, in Advisory Jurisdiction, heard a preliminary objection raised by the respondent challenging the maintainability of the reference. The Court observed that essential factual information was missing and required clarification before proceeding. It directed the Union of India to supply information within three weeks, notably whether any advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President under Article 74 existed before the reference was made, so as to determine the interplay between Articles 74 and 317(1). The Court framed key issues to be decided in due course: (i) whether Article 74’s applicability is attracted to a reference under Article 317(1); (ii) if attracted, at what stage; (iii) whether initiation of a reference under 317(1) must be preceded by the Council of Ministers’ advice; (iv) whether Article 74’s applicability to Article 317(1) is triggered only after the Report on Inquiry has been received and a presidential decision on removal or otherwise is contemplated. The matter was listed for hearing after four weeks, with directions that it be adjourned pending further information.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 74 of the ConstitutionArticle 317(1) of the Constitution

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not explicitly stated in the excerpt. The record shows that counsel for the Union of India argued a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the Reference, and the Court framed issues concerning the interplay between Articles 74 and 317(1). The materials indicate a request for information from the Union of India to clarify whether ministerial advice under Article 74 preceded the reference.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the excerpt. The respondents challenge the maintainability of the reference and address whether Article 74 applies to references under Article 317(1), and the timing and prerequisites for ministerial advice, to be determined by the Court in due course.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, FOR INQUIRY AND REPORT ON THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST DR. H.B. MIRDHA, CHAIRMAN, ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. B AUGUST 5, 2005 {R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND G.P. MA THUR, JJ.] _Constitution of India, 1950 :_ c _Article_ 7 _4 and 317 (1 )-Reference for inquiry into alleged misbehaviour· of Chairman of Orissa Public Service Commission-Court asking Union of India to supply information and clarify it, before making the Reference to the Court, there was any advise by Council of Ministers tendered to the President of India within the meaning of Article 74-Matter to be listed later._ D ## ADVISORY JURISDICTION : Reference No. 1 of 2003. Reference under Article 317( I) of the Constitution of India, for Inquiry and Report on the charges leveled against Dr. H.I~. Mirdha, Chairman, Orissa Public Service Commission. E Mohan Parasaran, Additional Solicitor General, Gaurav Agrawal, P. Parmeswaran for Union of India. Ms. Kiran Suri, Himanshu Buttan and Mali Santosh for Respondent. F Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra for Public Service Commission. Raj Kumar Mehta for State of Orissa. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : G This is a Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India initiated by the President of India calling for an inquiry into the alleged misbehaviour of Dr. H.B. Mirdha, the then Chairman of the Orissa Public Service Commission. Before the Court closed for summer vacation, the learned counsel appearing in the case were heard on the preiiminary objection H raised on behalf of the respondent, laying challenge to the maintainability of 370 **REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF lliE CONSTITIJTION OF TNOIA. FOR INQUIRY AND REPORT ON 3 71 THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST OR. H.B. MIRDHA, CHAIRMAN. ORJSSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION** A F the Reference itself. Orders were reserved. However, we find some essential factual information missing, on availability whereof, we would like to hear all the learned counsel on the necessary aspects of the preliminary objection, reflected in the issues which we frame hereunder. > First, on point of fact we would like the Union of India to supply the information and clarify if, before making the reference to this Court, was there any advise by the Council of Ministers tendered to the President oflndia within the meaning of Article 74 of the Constitution? On such information being made available in three weeks, we would like to hear the learned Artorney General for India as also all the learned counsel appearing in the case on the following issues : **B** C (!) Whether the applicability of Article 74 of the Constitution is attracted to a Reference made by the President under Article 317(1) of the Constitution.? **D** > (2) (a) If 'yes', at what stage? (b) Whether the initiation of Reference by the President under Article 317(1) must be precedent under Article 317(1) must be preceded by the advise of the Council of Ministers under Article 74? E (c) Whether the applicability of Article 74 is attracted to Article 317 only when the Report ·on Inquiry held by the Supreme Court has been received by the President and a decision for removal or otherwise is to be taken by the President. List after four weeks. R.P. Matter adjourned.