LexREF: versus SMT. SAYALEE SANJEEV JOSHI, MEMBER, MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A REF: SMT. SA YALEE SANJEEV JOSHI, MEMBER, MAHARASHTRA .. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ~ MAY 17, 2007 B [B.P. SINGH, T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: c Article 317-Reference-Member of Public Service Commission- Malpractices in respect of certain Examination-Arrest of the Meinber- Subsequently released on bail-Suspended by President of India-On a Reference to Supreme Court, HELD: Non-disclosure of her daughter being a candidate in the Examination amounts to misconduct and thus the charge answered in the affirmative-On another charge certain observations made- D Thus she did not behave in a manner befitting a member of a constitutional ,;,;a. body like· the Public Service Commission. The reference under Article 317 of the Constitution oflndia relates to the conduct of the respondent, a member of the Maharashtra Public Service . Commission and as to whether she is liable to be removed from office on the ;-- E ground of misbehaviour. ,- Respondent joined the Maharashtra Public Service Commission as a member on 8.5.2001. She was arrested on 8.6.2003 in a crime registered in connection with a complaint lodged by the Public Service Commission relating F to mal-practices in respect of an examination conducted in the year 1999. Twenty one others were also arrested. The respondent was lodged in jail The Governor of Maharashtra requested the President of India to initiate action i. under Article 317 of the Constitution of India for her removal. He also suspended her from office until an order had been passed by the President under clause (1) of Article 317 of the Constitution. The respondent was G subsequently released on bail. Thus, the reference came to be made to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India. The following were the charges framed by this Court based on the " I H 116 ... I 1 SAY ALEE SANJEEV JOSHI, MEMBER. MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SER VICE COMMISSION 117 suggestions of the Attorney General for India on examination of the relevant A materials. Charge-I Whereas Ms. Sayalee Joshi has, directly or indirectly, tried to protect the interests of 24 candidates who appeared in an examination B conducted by the MPSC and has also attempted to influence an officer of the Commission to do such illegal actions in the future in conjunction with one Mr. Nitin Sathe. Charge-2 Whereas the respondent no.3, Ms. Sayalee Joshi committed an act of misbehaviour by interfering with an internal inquiry being conducted by the Secretary of MPSC regarding alleged malpractices in the examination for PSI/Asstt/STI conducted by the MPSC. Charge-3 Whereas Ms. Joshi deliberately and in a ma/a fide manner omitted to disclose a very vital fact to the Commission, namely that her daughter was appearing for an examination being conducted by MPSC, which disclosure was mandatory as per Office Order No.4/1998 dated 5.5.1998 of the MPSC and hence sought to suppress vital and material information from the Commission, which affects her integrity and complete devotion to duty in an impartial manner, amounting to misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. Charge-4 Whereas Ms. Joshi, in collusion with Mr. Nitin Sathe, attempted to sabotage lodging of a complaint by a candidate as regards malpractices in the examination conducted by the MPSC for the posts of PSl/Asstt/ STI and hence abused her official position and acted contrary to the interest of the Commission and the candidates, and is guilty of misbehaviour under Article 317(1) of the Constitution. Answering the Reference, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is evidence to show that on 25.4.2002, P. W.15 Sarode visied the respondent at her flat. The visit is recorded in the visitors' book c D G kept at Nilambari, the building in which the Oat is situate. The respondent H 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R. A has also admitted this visit. It is the charge that, at this meeting, Nitin Sathe, a person who was involved in the 1996 examination scam and who was also arrested in connection with the 1999 examination scam was also present The presence of Nitin Sathe is sought to be proved by the evidence of P.W.15 Sarode, supported by his previous statement, Exhibit 53, the confession made before P.W.14 and also by way of inference from the number of telephone calls B the respondent had made to Nitin Sathe from her residential telephone, office telephone and her
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.