c 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. AUGUST 5, 2005
{R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND G.P. MA THUR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : 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. 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. Mohan Parasaran, Additional Solicitor General, Gaurav Agrawal, P. Parmeswaran for Union of India.
Ms. Kiran Suri, Himanshu Buttan and Mali Santosh for Respondent. Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra for Public Service Commission. Raj Kumar Mehta for State of Orissa. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
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 raised on behalf of the respondent, laying challenge to the maintainability of 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 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 :
(!) 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.? (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?
(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.