After hearing the learned companynsel for the parties this Court, by an order dated March 29, 2005, expressed the opinion that numberhearing or opportunity of showing cause against the proposed Reference under Article 317 1 of the Constitution was necessary before making the Reference.
The Court numbericed that the Reference referred to the companyplaints annexed with Reference wherefrom the facts, companystituting the ground of alleged misbehaviour within the meaning of Article 317 1 of the Constitution, were clearly stated.
Later on he took over as Chairman of the OPSC on April 30, 1999.
The Honble President took into companysideration the letter dated August 23, 2001, addressed by the Governor of Orissa to him, as well as reply of Dr. Mirdha obtained by Governor of Orissa and other materials.
Keeping in view the above allegations made by Ms. Patro, a reference was made by the State Government to the Lokpal, Orissa.
Dr. Mirdha declared on January 8, 2001 that numbere of his relatives was appearing in the ensuing examination.
The examination of the records indicate that his two married daughters, namely, Smt.
The issue of admission certificates was a routine work of the Commission.
According to Mr. Sarkar this stand of Dr. Mirdha was objected to by him.
The Special Secretary placed a proposal for companydonation of certain deficiencies found in some of the applications, which were received.
The Governor, therefore, by letter dated August 23, 2001, recommended to the Honble the President to make a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 317 1 of the Constitution for necessary enquiry into the allegations made against the Chairman.
Briefly stated they were i numberhearing or opportunity of showing cause was given to him by the President before making the Reference and, therefore, the Reference should be rejected, ii the Reference was vague, and iii assuming the facts stated in the Reference to be companyrect, yet a case for proceeding ahead against him within the meaning of sub Article 1 of Article 317 of the Constitution was number made out.
Sitarani Mirdha had made applications on January 31, 2001 for undertaking the examination and that they had withdrawn their applications on May 31, 2001 by sending a fax message.
Ms. Patro was interviewed by the Board companysisting of Dr. Mirdha and others.
In meeting held on June 2, 2001, Dr. Mirdha had divulged that his two married daughters were candidates for examination but that fact was number known to him and as his daughters had withdrawn their candidature, there was numberbar to his involvement in the examination process.
1 of 1983 decided on August 17, 1983 and reported in 1983 4 SCC 258.
The Governor requested the State Government to obtain legal opinion on the question whether on the available material a prima facie case was made out against the Chairman for action under Article 317 1 of the Constitution.
They opined that there existed a prima facie case for initiating action against the Chairman of the OPSC under Article 317 1 of the Constitution.
The Reference received was registered as Reference No.
According to the said companyplaint, the companyplainant had appeared along with 37 students for being selected to two posts that were advertised on January 26, 1999 in the subject of Home Science.
However, numberinformation regarding selection of question papers for the preliminary examination was given by the Chairman to other members of the Commission.
Therefore, the State Government reiterated its earlier request for action under Article 317 1 of the Constitution.
As per the affidavit filed by Mr. Sarkar, in this meeting Dr. Mirdha informed that his two married daughters were candidates for the examination but that fact was number known to him and as they had withdrawn their candidature, there was numberbar to his involvement in the examination process.
The interview was held on June 12, 2000 in which Ms. Ajanta Nayak had been selected despite her having secured the lowest marks in the written test.
The State Government obtained the opinion of the Advocate General and the Law Secretary.
The last date for receipt of the applications was January 31, 2001.
The learned companynsel for Dr. Mirdha had raised three preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Reference.
The said request was granted by the Court.
What was alleged was that it was planned to accommodate the candidates belonging to the aforesaid companyching centre in the examinations to be companyducted by the OPSC.
Subsequent to above declaration, two married daughters of Dr. Mirdha applied on January 31, 2001 for undertaking the ensuing examination.
The Governor was of the opinion that it was incumbent upon the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission to maintain an image, dignity, impartiality and integrity and that the companyduct of Dr. Mirdha prima facie showed failure to maintain absolute integrity and dignity.
Again in the meeting held on May 30, 2001 several important points were discussed regarding the modality to be adopted for the selection of question papers for the preliminary examination as well as declaration by the Members for the purpose of maintaining secrecy and the declaration by the Members and the employees regarding their close relatives appearing in the examination.
The Commission deliberated and decision in each case was taken.
Anuragini Mirdha and Smt.
After preliminary enquiry, the State Government, at the level of the Chief Minister, requested the Governor to recommend to His Excellency the President of India to make reference to the Supreme Court under Article 317 1 of the Constitution.
1 of 2003 under Article 317 1 of the Constitution and numberices were issued to the interested parties.
It was alleged that the marks awarded in the interview to Ms. Patro, who had secured maximum marks in the written test, were intentionally reduced at the behest of Dr. Mirdha for which, according to Ms. Patro, Dr. Mirdha had received a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs for favouring Ms. Ajanta Nayak to select her as a Junior Lecturer in Home Science.
Further, a companyplaint was submitted by Ms. Pranati Patro on October 27, 2000 against Dr. Mirdha on a serious charge of bribery.
The Honble the President was satisfied from the material placed before him that a prima facie case was made out for enquiry into the first two charges in the companyplaint made by the Members of the Commission and the charge levelled in the petition filed by Ms. Patro against the Chairman of the Commission.
The Special Secretary of the OPSC circulated a declaration to be made by all the Members including the Chairman and the employees as to whether any of their near relations or persons they were interested in, were appearing in the examination.
M. Panchal, J. This is a Reference under Article 317 1 of the Constitution of India for enquiry and report on the charges levelled against Dr. H.B. Mirdha, who was Chairman of the Orissa Public Service Commission.
The OPSC had prayed to grant eight weeks time to file the list of witnesses and the affidavits of the witnesses along with documents by which the charges were said to be proved against Dr. Mirdha.
The Court, therefore, overruled second preliminary objection that the Reference was vague.
The facts giving rise to the Reference are as under Dr. H.B. Mirdha was appointed as Member of the Orissa Public Service Commission OPSC for short on April 3, 1998.
An advertisement inviting applications for the Orissa Civil Services Examination, 2000 was published in the newspapers on November 6, 2000.
The purpose was to keep such members or the employees out of the process of companyducting examination in order to ensure impartiality and fair play.
As far as third preliminary objection was companycerned, the Court had directed the learned Additional Solicitor General to file a statement setting out the charges and the facts forming basis thereof, which might need to be inquired into companysistently with the procedure laid down by this Court in the matter of Reference under Article 317 1 of the Constitution Special Reference No.
Out of 37 students, 10 students were selected for interview on the basis of written test, in which, according to the companyplainant, she had secured the highest marks.
In this meeting, Dr. Mirdha did number offer such declaration of interest in respect of his close relatives who were to appear in the forthcoming examination to be companyducted by the OPSC.
