2005(2) JLJ 79
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Rajendra Tiwari @ Raju v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No. 4522, 4527 to 4729, 4535, 4539, 4557, 4558 and 4683 of 2004; Decided on 16.12.2004.
All the petitioners were appointed by State of Madhya Pradesh under para 15 of Law Department Manual. The term of all the Advocates has not expired so far and by identical orders, the petitioners‘ services have been dispensed with. [Para 1
In all the orders, the State Government has assigned the reason that as per the complaints received by the State Government from the District Magistrate, the working of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and has been removed by one month‘s notice. [Para 2
Held : It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed and thereafter he was appointed on probation for a fixed term. Before completion of his term, the respondents have removed him from the office of Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has been removed on the ground that his performance was unsatisfactory and the aforesaid performance has been found on the basis of some complaint received against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that neither show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him. The petitioner is not aware what are the circumstances against him resulting his termination.
Initially appointment was made on probation, and after due performance, on the recommendation of Sessions Judge, the Public Prosecutor or the Additional Prosecutor continues to hold the office. In these circumstances, when a complaint is received, natural consequence must be either a show cause notice to the Advocate or some enquiry from the Sessions Judge or, from the District Magistrate, and until and unless such procedure is adopted, removing Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground of complaints and using word ‘unsatisfactory‘ is apparently stigmatic. An Advocate having 7 years‘ standing in the profession is entitled to be appointed as Public Prosecutor/ Assistant Public Prosecutor. The aforesaid criterion is very important and only a person having 7 years‘ practice will be eligible to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor. After appointment, he enjoys the office having faith of the District Administration and of the State. In aforesaid circumstances, if• the services of the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor is dispensed with the reason that his performance was unsatisfactory, naturally it will cause stigma on his entire career or his further appointment as Government Advocate or Public Prosecutor. The petitioner enjoys a reputation in the society and works on the faith of the society that he will plead the case of the public on behalf of State in the Court of law, i.e., with ability and performance. If this message goes to the public that certain person bas been removed from the office of Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor because of his unsatisfactory performance, it will cause serious stigma on his entire career. It will affect reputation; grace, and imputation, shame in the society. In aforesaid circumstances, the order dispensing with the service of the petitioner with stigma cannot be sustained under the law. AIR 1991 SC 537 and 2.004 AIR SCW 3888 followed. M.P. No. 3325 of 1990 relied on. [Para 10
fof/k foHkkx eSuqvy ¼e-ç-½&iSjk 15] 17] 18 rFkk 19&naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 24 rFkk 25& &ljdkjh IyhMjk ljdkjh vfHk;kstd rFkk vij ljdkjh IyhMj vkSj vij ljdkjh vfHk;kstd dh fu;qfDr& ∈ dh çÑfr rFkk dyad;qDr lekfIr& &dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ds fcuk rFkk uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k djrs gq, tk¡p fd, fcuk vuqKs; ughaA
leLr ;kphx.k e/; çns‘k jkT; }kjk fof/k foHkkx eSuqvy ds iSjk 15 ds v/khu fu;qDr fd, x, FksA bl lHkh vf/koDrkvksa dh inkof/k dk vc rd volku ugha gqvk gS rFkk le:i vkns‘kksa }kjk ;kfp;ksa dks lsok ls vfHk;qDr dj fn;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 1½
leLr vkns‘kksa esa] jkT; ljdkj us ;g dkj.k fn;k gS fd jkT; ljdkj dks ftyk eftLVªsV }kjk çkIr f‘kdk;rksa ds vuqlkj] ;kph dh lsok lek/kkuiw.kZ ugha ikbZ xbZ rFkk ,d ekl dh lwpuk }kjk gVk fn;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 2½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd vkjaHk esa ;kph fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk rRi‘pkr mls fu;r vof/k ds fy, ifjoh{kk ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA mldh vof/k iw.kZ gksus ls iwoZ çR;FkhZx.k us mls yksd vfHk;kstd ds in ls gVk fn;k gSA ;kph dks bl vk/kkj ij gVk;k x;k gS fd mldk dk;Z vlarks"ktud Fkk rFkk iwoksZDr vlarks"ktud dk;Z dk fu"d"kZ ;kph ds fo#) çkIr fdlh f‘kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij fudkyk x;k gSA ;g Hkh fookfnr ugha gS fd ;kph dks u dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh dh xbZ Fkh] u mls lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj gh fn;k x;k FkkA ;kph dks Kkr ugha gS fd mlds fo#) og dkSu lh ifjfLFkfr;k¡ gS ftuls mldh lsoklekfIr ifj.kr gqbZ gSA vkjaHk esa fu;qfDr ifjoh{kk ij dh xbZ Fkh rFkk lE;d dk;Z djus ij] ls‘ku U;k;k/kh‘k dh flQkfj‘k ij] yksd vfHk;kstd vFkok vij vfHk;kstd viuk in /kkj.k fd, jgrk gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] tc f‘kdk;r çkIr gksrh gS rc LokHkkfod ifj.kke vf/koDrk dks dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk dk gksrk gS ;k ls‘ku U;k;/kh‘k vFkok ftyk eftLVªsV dh vksj ls dksbZ tk¡p( rFkk tc rd ,slh çfØ;k vaxhdkj ugha dh tkrh] f‘kdk;rksa ds vk/kkj ij yksd vfHk;kstd ;k vij yksd vfHk;kstd dks gVkuk rFkk ‘‘kCn ^^vlarks"ktud** dk mi;ksx djuk] çdVr% dyad yxkuk gSA o`fÙk esa 7 o"kZ dh çfr‘Bk okyk vf/koDrk yksd vfHk;kstd@lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr fd, tkus dk gdnkj gksrk gSA iwoksZDr ekunaM cgqr egRoiw.kZ gS rFkk 7 o"kZ ds fof/k&Oolk; okyk O;fDr gh yksd vfHk;kstd ;k vij yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr fd, tkus dk ik= gksxkA fu;qfDr ds i‘pkr og ftyk ç‘kklu rFkk jkT; ds fo‘okl ls in dk miHkksx djrk gSA iwoksZDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;fn yksd vfHk;kstd ;k vij yksd vfHk;kstd dks bl dkj.k ls lsok ls vfHk;qDr dj fn;k tkrk gS fd mldk dk;Z vlarks"ktud Fkk rc LokHkkfod gS fd mlls mldh laiw.kZ o`fÙk ;k vkxs ljdkjh vf/koDrk vFkok yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa mldh fu;qfDr dyafdr gksxhA ;kph dh lekt esa [;kfr gS rFkk og lekt ds bl fo‘okl ij dk;Z djrk gS fd og U;k;ky; esa jkT; dh vksj ls turk ds i{kdFku dk vfHkokd djsxk] vFkkZr lkeF;Z vkSj dk;Zdq‘kyrk lsA ;fn turk rd ;g lans‘k igq¡prk gS fd fdlh O;fDr dks ljdkjh IyhMj ;k yksd vfHk;kstd ds in ls mlds vlarks"ktud dk;Z ds fy, gVk;k x;k gS] rc mldh laiw.kZ o`fÙk xaHkhj :i ls dyafdr gks tk,xhA mlls [;kfr] lEeku çHkkfor gksaxs rFkk lekt esa ykaNu vkSj ‘kfe±nxh gksxhA iwoksZDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] ;kph dks dyad lfgr lsok ls vfHk;qDr djus dk vkns‘k fof/k esa dk;e ugha j[kk tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 537 rFkk 2004 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCy;w 3888 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10½
1. This batch of petitions involving common question of law based on similar facts is being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 4535 of 2004. The facts are common, but details necessary for this petition are as under :
________________________________________________________________________
Sr. WP No. Petitioner' s name Posted as Date of Date of order
appointment of removal
1. 4522/04 Rajendra Tiwari IInd Addl. Govt. 1.6.2000 18.10.2004
Prosecutor (Ann. P-6)
2. 4527/04 Vinay Kumar Jain Govt. Pleader 16.9.2003 20.10.2004
(Ann. P-3)
3. 4528/04 Indra Bhusan Govt. Pleader 24.7.2003 20.10.2004
Shrivastava (Ann. P-3)
4. 4529/04 Choudhary Jogendra Govt. Pleader 5.7.2003 20.10.2004
Singh (Ann. P-4)
5. 4535/04 Phool Mohammad A.G.P. 7.12.2002 18.10.2004
Mansoori (Ann. P-1)
6. 4539/04 Vijay Khare A.G.P. 7.12.2002 18.10.2004
(Ann. P-1)
7. 4557/04 Yaduvanshmani Govt. Advocate 31.12.1995 18.10.2004
Mansoori (Ann. P-5)
8. 4558/04 Ramprasad Dwivedi 1st A.G.P. 31.3.1997 18.10.2004
(Ann. P-5)
9. 4683/04 Guru P.D. A.G.P. 1.4.1997 18.10.2004
Mishra (Ann. P-1)
All the petitioners were appointed by State of Madhya Pradesh under para 15 of Law Department Manual. The term of all the Advocates has not expired so far and by identical orders, (one of which is quoted hereunder) the petitioners' services have been dispensed with:
^^jkT; "kklu us ftyk naMkf/kdkjh ls çkIr f"kdk;rksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh ih-,l- ealwjh] vfrfjDr "kkldh; vfHkHkk'kd] lruk dk dk;Z larks'ktud ugha ik;k gSA* vr% jkT; "kklu Jh ih-,l-ealwjh dks fof/k foHkkx fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 19 ds varxZr vkns"k tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls ,d ekg i"pkr in eqDr djrk gSA**
2. In all the orders, the State Government has assigned the reason that as per the complaints received by the State Government from the District Magistrate the working of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and has been removed by one month's notice.
3. The aforesaid order is challenged by the petitioner on following grounds:
(a) That the petitioner has not completed his term and was entitled to complete his term. As per para 18 of the Manual, normal tenure is three years from the date of appointment or till the termination of term.
(b) The respondents have shown reason in the order that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory. This order is stigmatic, and the respondents ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing such an order.
(c) That the petitioner is entitled to know the reason why he has been removed from such office. He is working as a Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and is virtually discharging very important and responsible duties in the District as Government Pleader/Additional Government Pleader.
(d) That the petitioner was initially appointed on probation and after completion of the probation period of one year, he was confirmed and term was extended. In these circumstances, he was entitled to continue in office for full term.
(e) That the order being stigmatic in nature, will affect the career of the petitioner.
(f) That there is no material against the petitioner with the respondents, warranting termination of the term.
(g) That in all the cases, identical orders are issued by the respondents, which are stereo-type and have been issued without application of mind.
(h) The petitioner was appointed after due recommendations from the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate of the concerned district. In these circumstances, when the petitioner was duly recommended by the aforesaid District authorities, then the petitioner was entitled a reasonable opportunity of hearing from respondents. The petitioner has placed his reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. [AIR 1991 SC 537] and State of U.P. v. Johri Mal [2004 AIR SCW 3888], and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Debiprasad Sharma v. State of M.P. and others [M.P. No
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.