IN RE: SMT. SAYALEE SANJEEV JOSHI, MEMBER MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. versus .

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1099 · Decided: 05-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

IN RE: SMT. SAY ALEE SANJEEV JOSHI, MEMBER 
A 
MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. 
OCTOBER S, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH, T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND P.K. 
BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of Inida, 1950: 
Article 317(1)-Reference under-Member of Maharashtra Public Service 
Commission-Allegation against-Jn relation to malpractice in Maharashtra C 
Public Service Commission Examination, 1999-/nquiry into-Framing of 
charges-Held, 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-But the material on record has to be 
scrutinized with a view to arrive at a tentative conclusion that, if not rebutted, D 
.the charges of mis-behaviour are made out-Charge Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 
contained in the note of Attorney General for India be framed against the 
Member. 
ADVISORY JURISDICTION : Reference No. I of 2004. 
E 
(Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India). 
Amarendra Sharan, Additional Solicitor General for Attorney General 
of India, V.A. Mohta, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Shalinee Ranjan, Gaurav 
Agrawal, P.Parmeswaran, Ajit Kumar Sinha, S.S. Shinde, Ravindra Keshavrao 
Adsure, Makarand D.Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Nilakanta Nayak and Vishwajit F 
Singh with them for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. SINGH, J. The President of India in exercise of powers conferred 
by clause (I) of Article 317 of the Constitution of India referred to this Court G 
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. 
1099 
H 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 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 
C 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 
D aforesaid reference to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of 
India. 
This Court by its order dated December i3, 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 
E be inquired into within the meaning of Article 3 I 7( I) 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 
p 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 I, 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 tlie learned 
G 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. 
H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.