The denial of permission to a Government Pleader to defend criminal cases against the Government within his district is justified to prevent conflicts of interest, while allowing exceptions for cases outside jurisdiction.

Judgment :

Biswanath Rath, J.

1. This Writ Petition involves the following prayer:-

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ application, issue notice to the Opposite Parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the counsel for parties, impugned intimation under Annexure-8 Series be quashed and the opposite parties be commanded to accord permission to the petitioner to conduct cases against the Government as per the list furnished under Annexure-7 and all such cases where he was engaged prior to his appointment as the Government Pleader;

And may further be pleased to pass any other order/order(s), direction/directions(s) as would be deemed fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. Background involving the case is that Petitioner is an Advocate by profession. He was appointed as Government Pleader in Bargarh District vide notification No.10350/L dated 17.10.2016 issued by Opposite Party No.1 appearing at Annexure-1. Petitioner assumed position to act as a Government Pleader with intimation to Collector, Bargarh on 17.10.2016, communication appears to be at Annexure-2 since was conducting 69(sixty nine) number of cases on behalf of defence against the Government, Petitioner sought for permission to conduct the cases by forwarding the list thereof, pursuant to which vide order No.1120 dated 03.12.2016 he was allowed to conduct and defend cases involved therein. Permission order appears at Annexure-3. The cases were appear in Annexure-A appended to Annexure-3. It appears in the meantime Petitioner resigned from his post of Government Pleader. Acceptance of resignation appears at Annexure-4. In the meantime this Petitioner was again appointed as Government Pleader for Bargarh District vide notification No.7524 dated 28.07.2021 and the Petitioner assumed the office of Government Pleader of Bargarh district on dated 02.08.2021. Above notification and joining report are at Annexure-5 and 6 respectively.

3. It is on such development and the Petitioner joining as Government Pleader in the Bargarh district, he again sought for permission vide letter dated 29.09.2021 to conduct the listed 84(eighty four) criminal cased in terms of Rule 14(d) of the Orissa Law Officers’ Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called as Rule 1971). Pursuant to seeking such permission Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 03.11.2021 dated 04.04.2022 intimated the Collector, Bargarh, Petitioner may not be allowed to conduct 84 number of cases against the Government. Communication and the decision of the Government are appearing at Annexure-8 series.

4. Petitioner raises objection on denying of the permission to conduct these 84 cases on the ground taken in paragraphs-10 to 12 of the Writ Petition. Sole challenge of the Petitioner appears to be looking to the role of the Petitioner under Rule 13 therein to aid and advise the Government in civil matters only, there should not be denying of permission to the Petitioner in conducting the criminal cases, even though listed cases are all against the Government. Petitioner claims there is no establishment of relationship between the Government and the Petitioner as a lawyer so far as criminal cases are concerned.

5. Referring to clause-(c) and (d) of Rule 14 of Rules 1971 reading along with the provisions at Rule 13 Petitioner while claiming with the role of the Petitioner as a Government Pleader in civil side and conducting as defence lawyer in criminal matters are clearly dist