CONTENTS

PAGE

Personnel of the Committee………………………………………………. Report…………………………………………………………………….. Minutes of Sittings of Committee ……………………………………….. Minutes of Evidence*…………………………………………………… Appendices*………………………………………………………………..

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO THE

MISCONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF LOK SABHA

(FOURTEENTH LOK SABHA)

FIRST REPORT

(Presented to Speaker, Lok Sabha on 20August,2007)

(Laid on the Table on 23August,2007)

LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

August,2007/Sravana,1929(Saka)

2

PERSONNEL OF THE COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO MISCONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF LOK SABHA*

(14TH LOK SABHA)

Shri V. Kishore Chandra S. Deo – Chairman

MEMBERS

2. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta 3. Shri Anant Gangaram Geete 4. Shri C. Kuppusami 5. Prof. Vijay Kumar Malhotra 6. Shri Shriniwas Patil 7. Shri Mohammad Salim 8. Shri Braja Kishore Tripathy 9. Shri Rajesh Verma 10. Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav 11. Prof. Ram Gopal Yadav

SECRETARIAT 1. Shri V.K. Sharma - Joint Secretary 2. Shri Ravindra Garimella - Deputy Secretary 3. Shri Ashok Sajwan - Deputy Secretary

* Constituted on 16 May, 2007

3

FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO THE MISCONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF LOK SABHA

I. Introduction and Procedure

I, the Chairman of the Committee to Inquire into the

Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha having been authorized by the

Committee to submit the Report on their behalf, present this Report to

the Speaker, Lok Sabha on the issue of the ‘alleged misconduct of

Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP’. The alleged misconduct was

revealed by Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi, spouse of Shri Rajesh

Kumar Manjhi through her letters dated 15 December, 2006 and 6

March, 2007, addressed to the Speaker, Lok Sabha.

2. The Committee held 5 sittings. The relevant minutes of these

sittings form part of the Report and are appended hereto.

3. The Committee at their first sitting held on 14 June, 2007, held

preliminary deliberations on the matter. The Chairman informed the

members that a letter dated 31 May,2007 had been received from

Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi in which she had stated that she was

withdrawing all the allegations made by her against her husband Shri

Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP. After some deliberations, the Committee

decided that notwithstanding the withdrawal of allegation by Smt.

6

Pramila Kumari Manjhi, she may be requested to appear before the

Committee for evidence at their next sitting.

4. At their second sitting held on 3 July, 2007, the Committee

examined Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi on oath. Smt. Manjhi handed

over to the Committee a draft letter given to her by Shri Kaushlendra

Kumar Sinha, PA of Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi on the basis of which

she purportedly had submitted her letter dated 31 May,2007 seeking

withdrawal of her complaint against Shri Manjhi.

The Committee also examined Shri Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha,

PA of Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi on oath.

5. The Committee at their third sitting held on 24 July, 2007

examined Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, M.P. on oath.

6. The Committee at their fourth sitting held on 6 August, 2007

further examined Shri Manjhi on oath. The Committee after some

deliberations arrived at their findings and conclusions. The

Committee directed the Secretariat to prepare a draft Report for their

consideration at their next sitting.

7

7. The Committee at their fifth sitting held on 16 August, 2007

considered the draft Report and after some deliberations adopted the

same with some modifications.

II. Facts of the case

8. On 15 December, 2006, Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi, spouse

of Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, M.P. addressed a letter to the Speaker,

Lok Sabha alleging that Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP had been

misbehaving with her and also ill-treating her. Smt. Manjhi also

levelled the following allegations against her husband:-

(i) Shri Manjhi is misusing railway pass issued in favour of

her by taking some other woman named Rani alias

Meena with him on that pass.

(ii) Shri Manjhi is taking that woman along with him even

on his official tours.

(iii) Shri Manjhi often got that woman treated in Parliament

House Annexe and Dr. R M L Hospital on their CGHS

card.

(iv) Shri Manjhi allegedly got married to that woman without

informing her or taking divorce from her and is at

present living with her.

8

Smt. Manjhi requested the Speaker, Lok Sabha that the matter

may be inquired into and stern action be taken against Shri Manjhi.

She had also enclosed photocopies of her election identity card,

railway pass, issued by Lok Sabha Secretariat, and bio-data of the

member where she has been mentioned as his wife.

9. On 6 March, 2007, Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi addressed

another letter to the Speaker, Lok Sabha stating that Shri Manjhi was

continuously misbehaving with her and abusing her in front of his

friends. She further reiterated her earlier allegations against Shri

Rajesh Kumar Manjhi.

She requested the Speaker to look into the matter and do justice

with her.

10. On 25 April, 2007, the comments of Shri Rajesh Kumar

Manjhi were sought in the matter. Shri Manjhi vide his letter dated

3 May, 2007 furnished his comments in the matter. Shri Manjhi, in

his comments, while refuting the allegations made by his spouse,

stated that she had demanded Rs. 20 lakhs from him which he was

unable to pay and, therefore, she levelled those allegations against

him. Shri Manjhi further stated that his father-in-law, as well as his

political rivals were behind the complaint. Moreover, his father-in-

law also used to make derogatory statements against him in public.

9

11. As per records of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Shri Rajesh

Kumar Manjhi has been issued a spouse railway pass in favour of his

wife Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi. No CGHS card has, however,

been issued to Shri Manjhi.

12. On 16 May, 2007, the Speaker, Lok Sabha informed the House

that he had decided to constitute an eleven member Committee to

Inquire into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha, and observed as

follows:-

“The Committee will inquire into cases of misconduct of members of Lok Sabha including misuse of parliamentary privileges and facilities by them as may be referred to it by the Speaker from time to time and will recommend action, if any, to be taken in each case and submit the same to the Speaker. The Committee may also, if it deems fit, look into the desirability of defining what acts would amount to misconduct on the part of a member and make suitable recommendations regarding action to be taken in cases of such misconduct. The Committee is authorized to follow its own procedure, consistent with the well-established principles of law and natural justice.”

13. On 18 May, 2007, the Speaker referred the complaint of Smt.

Pramila Kumari Manjhi to the Committee to Inquire into the

Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha for examination and report.

10

14. Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi vide her letter dated 31 May,

2007 addressed to the Speaker, Lok Sabha stated that due to some

family problems she had made the complaint against her husband

Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP through her letters dated

15 December, 2006 and 6 March,2007 and since she had resolved her

differences with her husband and at present both of them were living

together, her complaint against him may be treated as withdrawn. As

the complaint had since been referred to the Committee, this letter

was placed before the Committee.

15. After the matter was referred to the Committee, the Committee

desired to know the names of the Standing Committees of which Shri

Manjhi was a member. It was learnt that Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi,

was the member of the three Standing Committees, viz. Committee on

the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Committee

on Empowerment of Women and the Committee on Labour. The

Committee then desired that information might be sought from all

these Committee Branches regarding number of times Shri Rajesh

Kumar Manjhi had taken his spouse/companion during the study

tours of the Committees and whether he had sought prior permission

of the Chairman for the same.

16. As per information received, the Committee learnt that

Shri Manjhi had never taken his spouse/companion during the study

tours of Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes and the Committee on Empowerment of Women.

11

However, he was accompanied by his spouse during the study tour of

the Committee on Labour to Bhubaneshwar, Vishakhapatnam,

Vizianagaram, Hyderabad and Kolkata, during 21 to 26 September,

2006 and had sought permission of the Chairman of the Committee.

17. Members’ Salary and Allowances(MSA) Branch was also

requested to furnish details of other air journeys performed by the

member along with his spouse. The MSA Branch furnished the

following information.

(i) On 13/08/2004, Shri Manjhi travelled from Patna to

Delhi along with Spouse by Air.

(ii) On 24/07/2005, Shri Manjhi travelled from Patna to

Delhi along with Spouse by Air.

(iii) On 23/03/2006, Shri Manjhi travelled from Delhi to

Mumbai along with Spouse by Air.

(iv) On 21/02/2007, Shri Manjhi travelled from Delhi to

Mumbai along with Spouse by Air.

III. Evidence

Evidence of Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi, spouse of Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP

18. The Committee, at the outset, desired to know from Smt.

Pramila Kumari Manjhi whether she had written the letter

withdrawing her complaint. She said, she was made to write that

letter. “ I did not write it of my free will.”

12

19. On being categorically asked the reasons for withdrawal of her

complaint, Smt. Manjhi stated, “I never wanted to withdraw the

complaint. I was compelled to do so under pressure from Shri Manjhi

through his PA Shri Kaushlendra. I want my rights. I need financial

support to raise my two children, which my husband refuses to

provide stating that I have no right on his money.”

20. When the Committee enquired from Smt. Pramila Kumari

Manjhi whether she had accompanied her husband during a study

tour of the Standing Committee on Labour to Bhubaneshwar,

Vishakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, Hyderabad and Kolkata, from 21 to

26 September, 2006, Smt. Manjhi replied, “I have never gone on any

tour since 2004, till date, with Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi”.

21. When the Committee asked Smt. Manjhi whether she lived with

Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi at his official residence in Delhi, She

replied, “Right now, I am living, but when Parliament is in session,

that other woman lives with him and goes with him on tours. His P.A.

has given all this information…”

Evidence of Shri Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, PA of Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP

13

22. The Committee examined Shri Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, on

oath on 3 July, 2007. On being asked whether he was aware that Smt.

Pramila Kumari Manjhi had written a letter to the Speaker, Lok

Sabha complaining against her husband, Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi,

Shri Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha replied, “I do not know anything

about it”

23. When further asked whether he knew about another letter

through which Smt. Manjhi has withdrawn allegations against Shri

Manjhi, Shri Kaushlendra said that he was not aware about any such

letter. On being asked whether he had forced Smt. Pramila Kumari

Manjhi to sign the letter withdrawing her complaint against Shri

Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, Shri Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha said, “Sir, I

have not got that letter written from her. I have no role in this. I did

not get her signatures on any letter.”

24. Shri Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha was then shown the letter

handed over to the Committee by Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi.

According to Smt. Manjhi that letter was in the handwriting of Shri

Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha and she was made to copy it and send that

copied version to the Speaker, Lok Sabha intimating him that she was

withdrawing her complaint.

14

Shri Sinha, when asked whether the said letter was in his

handwriting, replied in the affirmative but added that he had done so

at the behest of Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP.

25. When asked whether he was aware as to on how many

occasions Shri Manjhi went on tour with his spouse and whether he

knew any woman named Rani, Shri Kaushlendra replied, “ Sir, I do

not know. I do not know any such woman. I have seen Shri Manjhi

and Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi going by train together on one or

two occasions….”

Evidence of Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP

26. During his evidence before the Committee on 24 July, 2007

when Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP was enquired whether he had

accompanied his wife on the tour of Standing Committee on Labour

from 21-26 September, 2006, Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi said, “Yes,

she had gone with me on the said tour.”

27. On being told that Smt. Manjhi, during her evidence before the

Committee on 3 July, 2007, had stated that she had not gone with

him on the tour of Standing Committee on Labour from 21-26

September, 2006, Shri Manjhi replied, “She had gone with me. She is

lying.”

15

28. When asked whether he has any proof to show that his spouse

had gone with him on the said tour, Shri Manjhi replied, “ I don’t

have any proof because she hides/ keeps with herself the boarding

pass etc…. But I am speaking the truth that she had gone with me on

that tour…”

29. When Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi was warned and told about

the consequences of misleading the Committee, Shri Manjhi replied,

“ I am speaking the truth. Whatever the Committee will decide, I will

respect it.”

30. When enquired as to on how many times he took his spouse by

air from Patna to Delhi and from Delhi to Mumbai, Shri Manjhi

Stated, “ I do not vividly remember. But perhaps I have travelled

with her on 2-3 occasions.”

31. Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, however, addressed a letter to the

Chairman of the Committee on the same day after his evidence,

admitting that during the tour of the Standing Committee on Labour

from 21-26 September,2006, he had taken his woman-friend in the

name of his spouse. He also stated that he had taken permission from

the Chairman of the Committee on Labour for his spouse to

accompany him on the said tour but his spouse could not join him at

the last moment because of their small children.

16

32. The Committee again examined Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi on

oath on 6 August, 2007. During his evidence, when the Committee

enquired from him whether he had written any letter dated 24 July,

2007, to the Chairman of the Committee and if so, what were the

contents of that letter, Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi replied, “ I wrote

the said letter on 24 July, 2007 and handed it over to the Chairman

of the Inquiry Committee…During my evidence on 24 July, 2007

before the Committee, despite the repeated insistence by the

members, I could not speak the truth. After my evidence, I thought I

should reveal the truth…. I lied before the Committee. I express my

apology for the same. I did take my woman-friend on the tour of the

Standing Committee on Labour during 21-26 September, 2006 in the

name of my spouse…”

33. Shri Manjhi’s attention was invited to the fact that, as per

records of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, on 13 August, 2004, he

travelled from Patna to Delhi with his spouse by air and on 24 July,

2005 he again travelled from Patna to Delhi with his spouse. On 23

March, 2006, he travelled from Delhi to Mumbai with his spouse and

again on 21 February, 2007 he travelled from Delhi to Mumbai with

his spouse. Shri Manjhi, initially stated that on all these occasions

his wife was with him. The Committee told the member that

17

according to his wife she had never travelled with him by air after

2004. The Committee further told the member that if he persisted in

misleading the Committee, his wife will be called before the

Committee and he will be examined by the Committee in her

presence. Shri Manjhi, thereupon stated, “ During the Journey from

Delhi to Mumbai on two occasions, my woman- friend was with me…

and from Patna to Delhi my wife travelled with me….”

IV. Findings and Conclusions

34. After considering the various allegations made by Smt. Pramila

Kumari Manjhi against her husband, Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi and

keeping in view the remit of the Committee, the Committee decided

to restrict the area of their investigation to the allegations against the

member which related to the misuse of facilities available to members

of Parliament, like misuse of spouse’s railway pass and CGHS card

and taking another woman with him on official tours.

35. The Committee note that as per the records of the Lok Sabha

Secretariat, the member has been issued a spouse railway pass in

favour of his wife Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi. No CGHS card has,

however, been issued to the member till date. The Committee,

therefore, feel that no misconduct can be made out against Shri

Manjhi on these counts.

18

36. The only issue that now remains before the Committee for

consideration is whether the member had taken another woman with

him on official tour of a Parliamentary Committee in the name of his

wife in contravention of the rules and guidelines issued in this regard.

37. On a perusal of relevant records of Departmentally related

Standing Committees of Lok Sabha of which Shri Manjhi is a

member, the Committee note that as per the records of Standing

Committee of Labour, the member had taken his spouse only once in

the last two years during the tour of the Committee on Labour to

Bhubaneshwar, Vishakhapatanam, Vizianagaram, Hyderabad and

Kolkata from 21 to 26 September, 2006. Prior permission of the

Chairman of the Committee was taken by Shri Manjhi for taking his

spouse on the said tour. There were, however, no tour photographs in

Committee’s records showing Shri Manjhi with his spouse.

38. The Committee note that during her evidence before the

Committee, Smt. Pramila Kumari Manjhi stated that she stood by her

allegations notwithstanding the letter dated 31 May,2007, addressed

by her seeking to withdraw her earlier complaint against the member,

which she alleged was written by her under duress at the instance of

the member and his P.A. The Committee also note the categorical

denial by her of having ever accompanied the member on any

Committee tour.

39. On the other hand, the Committee find that Shri Manjhi in his

comments furnished vide his letter dated 3 May, 2007, on the

complaint against him, as also during his evidence before the

Committee on 24 July, 2007, had outrightly refuted the allegations

19

levelled against him. The member, on being confronted with his

spouse’s testimony before the Committee that she had never

accompanied him on any Committee tour, reacted by stating that his

spouse had lied.

40. While the member had admitted that his spouse had written the

letter withdrawing her earlier complaint on being forced by him, the

Committee find that the explanation given by him that the same was

an endeavour on his part to arrive at a compromise by way of some

domestic settlement, was not at all convincing.

41. The Committee wish to bring on record that despite being

repeatedly asked to state the facts and come out openly in the matter,

the member stuck to his position that the allegation of his wife that he

took some other woman on the Committee tour was not correct.

42. The member, however, did a volte-face soon after his evidence

and on the same day (24 July, 2007) ‘heeding to a call of his

conscience’, he addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Inquiry

Committee, confessing that during the tour of the Committee on

Labour in September, 2006 he did take, along with him, some other

woman in the guise of his wife.

43. The Committee note that the member, on being summoned

again before the Committee, admitted to the contents of the said letter

as well the fact that the letter was written under his hand.

Nevertheless, the Committee note that despite being asked to come

out with the full facts without concealing anything the member

initially maintained he had nothing more to reveal. It was only after

20

the Committee started asking the member pointedly with regard to the

air journeys which he had undertaken with his wife as per the records

in the office( para no.17 supfra) that he confessed taking ‘a woman-

friend of his’ along with him instead of his spouse on air journey on

23 March, 2006 from Delhi to Mumbai. On further persistent

questioning by the Committee, he admitted that on 21 February 2007

also he took the same friend along with him instead of his wife during

his air journey from Delhi to Mumbai.

44. The Committee are constrained to observe that it does not at all

behove a member to state unabashedly before the Committee that he

was not aware of the rules regarding travelling allowances.

45. The act of the member to take a woman other than his spouse

for whom he sought permission of the Chairman of Committee on

Labour on the Committee’s tour to Bhubaneshwar, Vishakhapatnam,

Vizianagaram, Hyderabad and Kolkata from 21 to 26 September,

2006 was a conscious and deliberate act of violation of guidelines

stipulated for Committee tours.

46. Various facilities have been made available to members to

enable them to perform their parliamentary duties effectively.

Participation in Committee deliberations is one of the important

parliamentary duties of members. Permission to members to take

their spouses/companions on Committee tours in certain exigencies is

a facility given to them to ensure that they perform their

parliamentary duties effectively.

21

47. In the case under consideration, the Committee are of the

view that Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi has blatantly misused the

entitled facilities while on a Committee tour. The Committee,

therefore, hold that the allegation made against him by his wife of

having taken another woman and personating her as his spouse

on a Committee tour, stands proved.

48. The Committee, therefore, hold Shri Manjhi guilty of misusing

his official air journeys for a woman other than his spouse.

49. The Committee also hold Shri Manjhi guilty of undertaking

entitled air journeys on 23 March, 2006 and 21 February, 2007

from Delhi to Mumbai, along with a woman personating her as

his spouse.

50. These acts of Shri Manjhi tantamount to cheating and

impersonation which are penal offences as well as a conduct

unbecoming of a member.

51. The Committee further find Shri Manjhi guilty of having

deliberately misled the Committee under oath during his evidence on

24 July, 2007. The Committee are also of the view that even on 6

August, 2007 Shri Manjhi was prevaricating and willfully sought to

suppress the truth.

52. Prevaricating, giving false evidence, or willfully suppressing

truth or persistently misleading a Committee by a witness constitutes

a contempt of the Committee as well as of the House.

22

53. The Committee, therefore, hold that Shri Manjhi has also

committed a contempt of the Committee and thereby of the

House by giving false evidence and willfully suppressing truth.

54. The Committee are deeply pained to note the impunity with

which the member had blatantly misused facilities to which he is

entitled as a member of Parliament and knowingly, willfully and

deliberately misled the Committee and thereby committed a contempt

of the Committee and of the House. The Committee are disinclined

to give any consideration to admission of guilt by the member and his

feeble apology, as the same did not appear to be the outcome of any

remorse felt by him, it rather came about only when the member felt

cornered and realized that his guilt would be proved anyway.

55. In keeping with the tradition of taking self correcting

measures by the fraternity of legislators on occasions of

misconduct by their colleagues, the Committee are of the firm

view that deterrent punishment needs to be meted out to Shri

Rajesh Kumar Manjhi for his grave misdemeanours and

contempt of the Committee and the House.

V. Observations

56. The Committee would not like to make any

recommendation with regard to the complaint made by Smt.

Pramila Kumari Manjhi about ill-treatment meted out to her by

Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi. The Committee hope that Shri

Rajesh Kumar Manjhi would, henceforth, endeavour to nurture

a harmonious relationship with his wife. The Committee of House

23

of Commons(UK) in its First Report on ‘Standards in Public

Life’, under the Chairmanship of Lord Nolan, observed that “It is

the personal responsibility of every Member of Parliament to

maintain those standards of conduct which the House and the

electorate are entitled to expect, to protect the good name of

Parliament….” As the conduct of a legislator in his personal life

in a way affects his public image, the Committee further hope

that Shri Manjhi would conduct himself in a more responsible

and mature manner in his personal relationship.

57. It is indeed a sad day that such instance of misconduct by a

member of Lok Sabha has come to the fore. Holding of an exalted

position of a member of Parliament carries with it the onerous

responsibility of measuring up to the peoples’ expectations and

keeping peoples’ trust in the parliamentary polity. Each and every act

of legislators which is not in line with principled behaviour, tends to

tarnish their image as well as the image of the democratic institutions.

It is, therefore, imperative that actions of the legislators whether in

the public domain or at the personal level are invariably governed by

the noble ideals and ethical values.

58. Underscoring the importance of moral principles which the

legislators are required to adhere to, the Committee would like to cite

the following quotation of Thomas Jefferson;

“ Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality.”

24

VI. Recommendations

59. In view of their findings and conclusions, the Committee

recommend that Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi may be

reprimanded and also suspended from the membership of the

House for thirty sittings of the House.

60. The Committee further recommend that Shri Rajesh

Kumar Manjhi be restrained from taking his spouse or

companion on official tours till the conclusion of the Fourteenth

Lok Sabha.

NEW DELHI V. KISHORE CHANDRA S. DEO, 16 August,2007 Chairman,

Committee to Inquire into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha

25

26