Back
Dismisses 's Writ Against Termination, Invokes 'Dignified Renunciation' Doctrine
The
has dismissed a writ petition filed by
, a
whose engagement was terminated by the
after serving a
. In a notable observation, Justice Deepak Roshan stated that when the government ends the tenure of a
, the appropriate response is a "
" rather than a
"
through the
."
Background: A Long-Standing Engagement Cut Short
Srivastava had been empanelled as a counsel for the CBI in animal husbandry scam cases since , handling multiple trials. However, on , the CBI issued a letter terminating his engagement with effect from , relying on Clause IV of a notification dated , which allows termination by either side upon one month's written notice.
Petitioner's Grievance: Lack of Hearing and Discrimination
, representing Srivastava, argued that the termination violated as no was granted. He further contended that the action was discriminatory—other counsels retained alongside his client continued to serve—and malafide, as Srivastava had been summoning CBI officers to court for evidence. Relying on the 's ruling in , he submitted that public prosecutors cannot be removed arbitrarily, and mandates fairness even in contractual engagements.
Respondent's Stand: Contractual Notice Valid and No Arbitrariness
, appearing for the CBI, countered that the termination strictly followed the 1997 notification. He argued that the State cannot be compelled to continue using a particular advocate's services, and under Article 226 is limited in such matters. He cited to support that the writ court cannot force the State to retain a counsel.
Court's Analysis: No Violation of Article 14 or Natural Justice
Justice Roshan noted that the impugned letter itself provided a clear , fully complying with the governing notification. The Court distinguished
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi
, which involved
of all government pleaders in Uttar Pradesh, whereas the present case was an
under a
.
"Once the act has been done in accordance with the manner prescribed, it cannot be said that there is any arbitrariness,"
the Court observed.
The allegation of was rejected for lack of concrete evidence. The Court held that mere pleadings without proof cannot establish , and the officer against whom such bias is alleged must be impleaded by name—which the petitioner failed to do.
Key Observations: A Lesson in Professional Dignity
The Court made a pointed reference to the 's judgment in , quoting:
"If the government does an act of ending the public office filled by a , what becomes the incumbent in the land of Gandhi is a , not a through the ‘ ’. Advocacy is a which requires the advocates, who are foremost , to conduct themselves in a ."
Decision and Implications
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The ruling reinforces that public prosecutors' engagements are contractual and terminable on notice, and that courts will not interfere unless there is clear arbitrariness or violation of . It also serves as a reminder to legal professionals to accept the end of such engagements with grace, rather than resorting to litigation over lost briefs.
