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.