Ramachandra Ayyar, J.—The respondent is an advocate practising at Cuddalore South Arcot District. He was appointed to the office of the Public Prosecutor for a period of three years from 1952 and in February, 1955, his term was extended for a further term of three years. In the year 1956 certain differences arose between the respondent and the Collector of the District. The respondent appears to have felt that by an unwarranted interpretation of the Rules the fees for the work done by him was reduced, and on 9th August, 1956, he tendered the resignation of his office. The resignation was accepted by the Government in G.O. No. 2585, Home, dated 13th September, 1956, with effect from 9th August, 1956.

While the respondent was in office as Public Prosecutor the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Prosecution) consulted him on 7th September, 1955, on the advisability of launching a prosecution against certain office-bearers of the Srimushnam Co-operative Society for alleged defalcation. Records relating to the alleged misappropriation of the society’s funds were placed before the respondent who gave a written opinion advising a complaint to the police for investigation and prosecution. Prosecution was launched against the office-bearers of the society and the accused were duly committed to Sessions by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, on 31st May, 1956. The case was originally posted before the Sessions Judge, but later it was transferred to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge II, Cuddalore, to be tried on 22nd August, 1956. As stated already the respondent had sent in his resignation by then. But the State Government had not passed orders accepting the same. The Collector, therefore, requested the respondent by his letter, dated 14th August, 1956, to attend to the current work till his resignation was accepted and till he was relieved. By another letter of the same date the Collector requested the respondent to conduct prosecution in the Srimushnam Co-operative Society defalcation case in S.C. No. 38 of 1956 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge II, Cuddalore. Unfortunately the respondent, without any regard to the dislocation of public work which would result as a consequence of his stopping away suddenly, wrote to the Collector the very next day, declining to take up the case on the ground he had resigned already (although the resignation was not accepted then) and that he had “ committed himself to other engagements” . We cannot help feeling that the respondent could have displayed a greater sense of responsibility by attending to the duties of office held till his resignation was accepted by the proper authority. Differences of opinion or even a feeling that he had not been justly treated (assuming it was warranted) cannot justify the precipitate action resulting in the abandonment of a duty he owned to the State and to the Court. Thereupon the Collector directed the handing over the papers to the Additional Public Prosecutor, who was placed in additional charge as Public Prosecutor. On 21st August, 1956, the respondent accepted the engagement on behalf of the second accused is S.C. No. 38 of 1956, the case in which he had given opinion for the prosecution. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies filed "an objection memo." before the Assistant Sessions Judge to the respondent’s appearing for one of the accused in the case, as he had intimate knowledge of the facts on the side of the prosecution. The fact of the respondent’s having given an opinion advising the prosecution does not appear to have been brought to the notice of or relied on before the learned Judge, as the objection was based only on certain alleged confidential communications. Accepting the assurance of the respondent that he did not come across any confidential records, the Assistant Sessions Judge overruled the objection and allowed the respondent to appear for the 2nd accused. In the trial that proceeded, the accused

Click Here to Read the rest of this document