You have provided a case title and court but no case content. I need the details of the case to provide a summary. Please provide the facts, issues, arguments, and the court's reasoning.

However, based on the title "Article 317(1) in Constitution of India," I can anticipate the summary will revolve around the removal of members of Public Service Commissions. Here's a hypothetical summary assuming the case deals with the interpretation of Article 317(1):

Short Summary

This case concerns the interpretation of Article 317(1) of the Indian Constitution, specifically addressing the removal or suspension of a member of a Public Service Commission. The holding likely clarifies the grounds and procedure for such removal, emphasizing the role of the President and the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction.

Facts

Assume a member of a State Public Service Commission (SPSC) was removed from office by the Governor. The removal was based on allegations of misconduct. The member challenged the removal, arguing that the procedure outlined in Article 317(1) was not followed. The Governor claimed the removal was justified and within his powers.

Issues

1. What constitutes "proved misbehaviour" under Article 317(1)?
2. Does the Governor have the power to remove a member of the SPSC without a report from the Supreme Court?
3. What is the scope of the Supreme Court's inquiry under Article 317(1)?

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner (the removed member) argued that the removal was illegal because:

1. The allegations of misconduct did not amount to "proved misbehaviour."
2. The Governor acted unilaterally without referring the matter to the Supreme Court for inquiry and report, as mandated by Article 317(1).
3. The principles of natural justice were violated.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent (the State/Governor) argued that:

1. The alleged misconduct was sufficient to warrant removal.
2. The Governor has inherent power to remove a member for misconduct.
3. Referring the matter to the Supreme Court was not necessary in this particular case.

Court's Reasoning

The Court likely emphasized the mandatory nature of Article 317(1). It would have held that the Governor cannot remove a member of the SPSC on grounds of misbehaviour without a report from the Supreme Court. The Court would have interpreted "proved misbehaviour" to require a high standard of proof and a thorough inquiry. The Court would likely reaffirm the importance of the Supreme Court's advisory role in ensuring the independence and integrity of Public Service Commissions.

Conclusion

The Court likely ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the removal was illegal due to non-compliance with Article 317(1). The Court may have ordered the reinstatement of the member or directed the Governor to follow the procedure outlined in Article 317(1) if further action was deemed necessary.

Important Note: This is a hypothetical summary. Please provide the actual case details for an accurate and complete analysis.