Court affirms adverse remarks against Chief Minister, stresses conduct standards for public officials.

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision that the remarks against the Chief Minister were adverse comments and not findings of fact. The Court emphasized the need for public officials to maintain high standards of conduct and noted the sorry state of affairs revealed by the tampering incident. The appeals and the application for additional evidence were disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of tampering with examination results.
2. Involvement of the Chief Minister in the tampering.
3. Admissibility of additional evidence.

Summary:

Allegations of Tampering with Examination Results:
The controversy centers around the conduct of the appellant in the M.D. Theory examination in Gynaecology and Obstetrics held by the University of Bombay from 14th to 17th October 1985. The petitioner, Dr. Gosavi, alleged irregularities and manipulation of grade sheets, resulting in the passing of Dr. Chandrakala Patil and Dr. Smita Thakkar, while he was declared failed. The High Court found that Dr. Rawal was responsible for tampering with and altering the grade sheets.

Involvement of the Chief Minister in the Tampering:
The main issue before the Court was whether the manipulation of the grade sheets was done at the behest of the appellant, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The learned single judge inferred that the alteration was done at the behest of the Chief Minister and his daughter, based on the circumstances and the improbability of Dr. Rawal acting on his own. However, the Division Bench held that the conclusion against the Chief Minister was merely an adverse comment and not a finding of fact, as there was no direct evidence linking him to the tampering.

Admissibility of Additional Evidence:
The Division Bench rejected the prayer to adduce additional evidence, which included allegations in a writ petition and an article in INDIA TODAY. The Court noted that the additional evidence was not admitted because it was belated, would have unnecessarily prolonged the trial, and was not directly connected with the immediate issues before the High Court. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the additional evidence sought to be introduced was controversial and lacked a satisfactory explanation for not being presented earlier.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision that the remarks against the Chief Minister were adverse comments and not findings of fact. The Court emphasized the need for public officials to maintain high standards of conduct and noted the sorry state of affairs revealed by the tampering incident. The appeals and the application for additional evidence were disposed of with no order as to costs.

---