The Constitution of India
Article 317
Removal and suspension of a member of a Public Service Commission
(1) Subject to the provisions of clause (3), 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 misbehaviour 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.
(2) The President, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, and the Governor in the case of a State Commission, may suspend from office the Chairman or any other member of the Commission in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under clause (1) until the President has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), the President may by order remove from office the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission if the Chairman or such other member, as the case may be, —
(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or
(b) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or
(c) is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body.
(4) If the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission is or becomes in any way concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of India or the Government of a State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of clause (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour.
Why this exists
Public Service Commissions (like the UPSC and State PSCs) are meant to recruit government officials fairly and independently, free from political pressure. To make that independence real, their members needed strong job security — they should not fear being sacked simply for taking unpopular or correct decisions. At the same time, the Constitution-makers did not want members to be completely unaccountable, so they built in a careful removal process (a Supreme Court inquiry) for serious misconduct, plus quicker, non-discretionary grounds (insolvency, taking another job, or genuine incapacity) where a full trial-like inquiry isn't needed.
How courts read it
The Supreme Court has treated the Article 145 inquiry under Article 317 as a quasi-judicial process requiring natural justice — the member facing removal must get a fair chance to respond to the allegations, though it need not mirror a full criminal trial's standard of proof. In the well-known Punjab Public Service Commission controversy (Mehar Singh Saini v. State of Punjab, 2010), the Supreme Court examined large-scale allegations of favoritism and corruption against PSC members and clarified that 'misbehaviour' for this Article covers serious dereliction of duty and abuse of position, not just criminal wrongdoing, and that courts and the executive must ensure the inquiry process is followed properly before removal.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The President or Governor can remove a Public Service Commission Chairman or member anytime they want.
Fact: Except for the specific situations in clause (3) — insolvency, outside paid employment, or infirmity — removal requires a Supreme Court inquiry into misbehaviour under clause (1). - Myth: Suspension under clause (2) means the person has already been found guilty.
Fact: Suspension is just a temporary measure while the Supreme Court's inquiry is pending; it is not a finding of wrongdoing. - Myth: Owning shares in a company that has a government contract automatically counts as misbehaviour under clause (4).
Fact: The clause specifically excludes ordinary shareholding held in common with other members of an incorporated company; it targets special personal interest or benefit beyond that.