SC holds former MPSC member guilty of misconduct

New Delhi, May 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court has held former Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) member Ms Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi guilty of misconduct for suppressing the fact that her daughter was appearing as a candidate in the examination being conducted by the Commission for the posts of police sub-inspector, Sales Tax Inspector and assistant.

A three judge bench comprising Justices B P Singh, Tarun Chatterjee and P K Balasubramanyan while answering the Presidential reference made in the Art 317 of the Indian constitution noted ''thus based on our finding, charge number three and our observation on charge number two, we are of the view that the respondent has not behaved in a manner befitting a member of the constitutional body like the Public Service Commission and under the circumstances, we answer the reference made by honourable President of India to us in the affirmative only as regard charge number three.'' The court however, did not find the evidence sufficient to uphold other five charges against her, though her conduct was suspicious.

Charge number three against her was that she suppressed the fact that her daughter Poorva had applied from two places for appearing in the examination conducted by the Commission in 2002.

The court held that it was immaterial whether her daughter appeared or not in the examination but the respondent as member of the Commission was legally bound to inform the Commission in writing about the candidature of her daughter .

She should have kept herself out of the selection process as her daughter had applied for the examination. She however, reiterated that her daughter did not appear in the examination, which the court rejected. Main allegations against her are that she tried to influence the results of 24 candidates who appeared in the examination. She had joined as member of the Commission on May 8, 2001 and she was arrested in 2003. She was released on bail later.

The Governor of the state recommended to the President of India her removal from the post and she was placed under suspension by the Governor. The President made reference to the Supreme Court under Art 317(1) of the Constitution. All six charges were levelled against her. The Attorney General pleaded before the court that charge number three and six may be dropped since they were not strictly within the purview of the reference made by the President.

Interestingly, the court had upheld charge number three against her.

Charge number one was that she tried to protect the interests of 24 candidates who appeared in MPSC examination and tried to influence the officers of the Commission to act illegaly in connivance with one Nitin Sathe. Second charge is that Ms Joshi tried to interfere in the internal inquiry being conducted against her by the Secretary of MPSC regarding malpractices. Charge number three is that she deliberately concealed the fact from the Commission that her own daughter was appearing for the examination being held by MPSC where disclosure was mandatory as per office order number 4/1998 dated May 5 1998 of the MPSC.

Charge number four is that Ms Joshi along with Nitin Sathe tried to sabotage lodging of a complaint by a candidate as regards malpractices and hence, she abused her offical position and acted contrary to the interest of the Commission and is therefore, guilty of misbehaviour. The apex court in its 153 page judgement written by Justice Balasubramanyan noted ''in fact, on an application of mind to all the relevant aspects it appears that one or two other charges should also have been framed against the respondent on the materials available. But then the Attorney General had not suggested those charges and we had also not framed them. Therefore, for the moment we do not say anything more about those charges. Suffice it to say that this charge has to be found against the respondent and it has also to be held that her conduct in not informing the Commission about her daughter's application for appearing in the examination in 2002 conducted by the Public Service Commission amounts to misconduct.'' One Aparna Dubey who had registered a complaint against the respondent, was forced to withdraw the same by Nitin Sathe through intimidation, at the instance of Ms Joshi and she was forced to lodge another complaint against Seema Dhamdhare, the Secretary to the Commission who was conducting an internal inquiry against Sayalee Joshi. The second complaint, a copy of which was recovered from the residence of the respondent during the search tried to make allegation against the Secretary to show that complainant was not an honest person and she and her friend were acting in concert to defame the respondent. Allegations were also made against Aparna that she had produced an incorrect experience certificate and has not produced an accurate creamy layer certificate and therefore, she was unreliable. The court directed that the answer to the reference will be duly forwarded to honourable President of India. The judgement was pronounced on May 17 but the copies of the same were made available today.

UNI