RAM SEWAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.