Re: Smt.
Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member, Maharashtra Public Service Commission [2005] Insc 546 (5
October 2005)
B.P. Singh,Tarun Chatterjee & P.K. Balasubramanyan O R D E R (Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India) B.P. SINGH, J.
The President of India in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of
Article 317 of the Constitution of India referred to this Court for inquiry and
report as to whether Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member, Maharashtra Public
Service Commission, ought, on the grounds of misbehaviour, to be removed from
the office of the Member of the Commission.
It appears that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission conducted an
examination in the year 1999 for selection of Police Sub Inspectors, Sales Tax
Inspectors and Mantralaya Assistants. In view of complaint lodged by the
Commission in relation to mal practices in the said examination, Smt. Sayalee
Sanjeev Joshi was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau on June 8, 2003. A Public Interest Litigation was also filed in the High Court of Bombay alleging
conspiracy of agents with high officials in manipulating the results of the
examination and Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi has been named and there is evidence
with Anti Corruption Bureau against her.
The President of India received a communication from the Governor of
Maharashtra dated August 5, 2003 enclosing therewith letter dated June 16, 2003
alongwith enclosures received from the Chairman of Maharashtra Public Service
Commission to the effect that Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member of the
Commission was involved in a scam pertaining to the results of the Commission
which warranted appropriate action under Article 317 of the Constitution of
India. In this background, the President of India made the aforesaid reference
to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India.
This Court by its order dated December 13, 2004 directed the Attorney
General for India to file statement setting out the grounds of misbehaviour
along with the statement of facts forming basis thereof which is proposed to be
inquired into within the meaning of Article 317(1) of the Constitution of
India. A list of documents sought to be relied on and the list of witnesses,
who are proposed to be examined, was also required to be filed. Pursuant to the
order of this Court, the learned Attorney General for India filed a statement
containing charges accompanied by statement of facts, list of witnesses and
list of documents on March 2, 2005. Learned counsel for the respondent was
granted time to file a concise response to the charges now framed so as to
define the scope of inquiry. Later by order dated April 1, 2005 the Maharashtra Public Service Commission and the Maharashtra State Government were directed
to assist the learned Attorney General for India for making available all the
relevant documents accompanied by translations so that the learned Attorney
General for India could form opinion on the question of re-framing or
supplementing the charges. Pursuant thereto the learned Attorney General for India
has submitted a note before us. Out of six charges originally suggested, the
learned Attorney General for India, has suggested that charge Nos. 3 and 6 may
be dropped.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.
Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing
on behalf of the Union of India submitted that the charges as suggested by the
Attorney General for India may be framed against Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi.
However, Mr.
V.A. Mohta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission submitted that even the two charges which, in the
opinion of the learned Attorney General, may not be framed in these
proceedings, should be framed and Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi should be called
upon to meet all the six charges levelled against her.
Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Sayalee
Sanjeev Joshi, on the other hand submitted that there is really no
justification for framing charges against Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi. Even the
charges suggested by the learned Attorney General for India are not supported
by evidence on record and it would be futile to frame those charges against
Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi which are bound to fail for lack of supporting
evidence. He strenuously urged before us that the material on record does not
even suggest remotely the involvement of Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi in the
aforesaid scam. There were others who may have conspired to commit illegality
and irregularities and indeed by the time Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi came into
the picture after her appointment as Member of the Maharashtra Public Service
Commission, the conspiracy had worked itself out and there was no scope for
participation of Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi.
On the contrary he sought to draw our attention to the evidence on record
which, in his submission, disclosed that her conduct was consistent only with
her innocence and not with her guilt.
In fact initially when a criminal case was registered, she was named as one
of the witnesses but later after procuring the confession of one Sudhakar
Sarode, the then Controller of Examination, she was arrayed as an accused in
the proceeding.
It appears from the note submitted by the learned Attorney General for India
that he perused voluminous documents received from the Secretary, Maharashtra
Public Service Commission and held discussions with Counsel appearing for the
State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. A proposed
draft statement of charges was handed over to counsel for the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission, the State of Maharashtra as well as counsel for Smt.
Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi. He thereafter considered the stand of the parties
including Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi qua each of the charges. A written reply
to the draft statement of charges was also submitted to him. After considering
the material placed before him and after considering response of the parties
including Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi the learned Attorney General for India has
suggested that Charge Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 appear to be charges which are
supported by material on record and those charges may be framed against Smt.
Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi. As regards charge Nos. 3 & 6, in the opinion of the
learned Attorney General for India, they need not be framed against Smt.
Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi.
We have advisedly not referred to the detailed submissions made before us on
the merit of the proposed charges. While Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi submitted that none of the
charges suggested by the learned Attorney General for India can be proved by
evidence on record, Mr.
V.A. Moha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission submitted that all the six charges ought to be framed
including the two charges which, in the view of the learned Attorney General
for India, deserved to be dropped.
At this stage it is not necessary for this Court to consider in detail the
evidence on record with a view to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the
charges stand proved. At this stage the material on record has to be
scrutinized with a view to arrive at a tentative conclusion that, if not
rebutted, the charges of mis-behaviour are made out. The learned Attorney General
for India, has taken pains to go through the evidence on record and the
suggestion made by him that charge Nos. 3 and 6 be deleted deserves acceptance.
Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi
submitted that for the same reasons charge No.4 should also be dropped.
According to him, charge No.4 relates to the examination held in the year 2002
whereas the Presidential Reference is in connection with the examination held
in the year 1999. He submitted that the aforesaid charge No.4 is not the
subject matter of the Presidential Reference.
We do not wish to express our opinion at this stage on the question raised
by Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev
Joshi. However, we clarify that it will be open to Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi
to contend in the inquiry that the said charge No. 4 is not the subject matter
of reference made by the President of India and therefore beyond the scope of
the Presidential reference, and consequently cannot be gone into in these
proceedings. We, however, hasten to add that we are not expressing any opinion
on this aspect of the matter, and it is open to the parties to advance their
respective contentions in the course of inquiry.
Having perused the note the learned Attorney General for India and the
material placed before us, we direct that charge Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 contained
in the note of the learned Attorney General for India be framed against Smt.
Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi.
The matter to now come up on October 25, 2005 when we shall hear the parties
on the question of the procedure to be adopted in the inquiry.
Back
Pages: 1 2
