Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Special Reference Case 1 of 2004
PETITIONER:
RE : Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member,Maharashtra Public Service Commission
RESPONDENT:
......................
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/10/2005
BENCH:
B.P. Singh,Tarun Chatterjee & P.K. Balasubramanyan
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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.