Judgment :- The Hood-light of the two Supreme Court (AIR 1991 SC 537 - Shri Lekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. =1991 (1) SCC 212) & 1988 (3) SCC 144 - Mukul Dalai v. Union of India) pronoucements also followed by three decisions of this Court ((a) 1994 (1) KLJ 684 - Susey Jose v. c. Janardhana Kurup (Thomas, J.) (b) Unreported - Cr.Misc.C.No.1607 of 1994 dt.17-1-1995 - K.S. Abdul Rauf v. State of Kerala (c) 1992 (2) KLT 849 - Prince ceorge, v. covt. of Kerala) is no guidance at all to the Law Secretary of the State covernment. Proceedings of this petition would leave this court with a feeling that decisions do not guide the situation and it is left again for this court to deal with the heavy dent to the governance by the rule of law. 2. The appoinouent of the District covernment Pleader by the State covernment is not merely a professional engagement like mat between a private client and his lawyer, nor is it purely contractual. A public element is attached to it. There is an element of continuity of the appointment. The appoinouent by itself gives a certain amount of status and adds to the reputation. At the time of appointment itself suitability in the context becomes the prime consideration, appoinouent itself being presumed, in its process of the best amongst those available. The method of appoinouent itself is that, in the instant case, it requires the decision of the Cabinet, pustulates endorsement for the recommendation based on seriousness of the situation. Having regard to the provisions of sections 24, 25, 321 Crl.P.C.1973, the appointee gets entrusted with the statutory responsibility to act thereafter solely in the interest of administration of justice. 3. These weighty facets of the status attached to the said appointment do not pale into insignificance totally in the matter of "termination at any time without assigning any cause or reason". Although non-assigning of any reason or its non-communication may be appreciated as based on public policy, however, it cannot be ignored that such a termination by itself is a slur on the character and status of the concerned person. It cannot be forgotten that character, reputation and status is the achievement perhaps of generations of the person concerned. It must be appreciated that "termination without assigning any reasons" can never be equated "without existence of any cause or reason". It cannot be forgotten that character, reputation and status is the achievement perhaps of generations of the person concerned. It must be appreciated that "termination without assigning any reasons" can never be equated "without existence of any cause or reason". It follows that it is necessary that the authority must possess cogent and satisfactory reasons in furtherance of the object. It also becomes really relevant to see whether the exercise of such important power smacks of arbitrariness, casualness resulting in denuding the person concerned of his character and reputation unjustifiably as a result of the exercise of this power in such a manner that the person concerned would be at pains of sufferance of assassination of character as a result. The material also requires examination and scrutiny as a result to find out whether there are dark shadows of sweet-will in the process, an element of absence of known methods and manifestation of aspects of haste.' 4. The approach postulates awareness of the accepted standards that the lawyer valid between the covernment Pleader and the State covernment. It can hardly be disputed that the courts have regarded the covernment Pleaders and Public Prosecutors much more than this and have placed them on the basis of disinterestedness as an additional dependable assistance of the judicial mind itself. 5. The proceedings of this petition would have to be opened for this judgment with the above prolegomena. Under the provisions of the Kerala covernment Law Officer (Appointment and Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1975, on May 16,1992, the petitioner was appointed as District covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor, District Ernakulam, pursuant to the decision of the Cabinet, for a period of three years from the date of the assumption of the charge. Today the said period is over as on and from May 22,1995. By the impugned order (Ex1P1O) dated December 12,1994, the appoinouent is terminated and the relevant text is as follows: "As per the G.O. referred as 2nd paper above Smf. Laly A.P. alias Laly VinceiHhas been appointed as District covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam for a period of three years w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the Kerala covernment Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. Laly A.P. alias Laly VinceiHhas been appointed as District covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam for a period of three years w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the Kerala covernment Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. As per Rule 17 of the Kerala covernment Law Officers Rules, the covernment may terminate the appoinouent of any covernment Law Officer at any dine before the expiry of the term of appointment without assigning any reason therefore after giving one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of such notice. Under R.35 of the said rules a District covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor is eligible for a monthly salary (retainer fee) of Rs. 270/-. Now, the covernment are pleased to terminate the service of Smt.A.P. Laly alias Laly Vincent, District covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam with immediate effect under R.17 of the Kerala covernment Law Officers (Appoinouent and Conditions of service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. Smt. A.P. Laly alias Laly Vincent shall be paid Rs. 270/- (Rupees two hundred and seventy only) in lieu of one month's notice. The District Collector, Ernakulam shall take necessary steps to draw and disburse the amount of Rs. 270/-(Rupees two hundred and seventy only) to Smt. A.P.Laly alias Laly Vincent. The expenditure on this account shall be met from the concerned head of account. The covernment are also pleased to order that Sri.P.C. lype, Additional covernment Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam will hold additional charge of District covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam temporarily until further orders." 6. The present petition is filed on January 9, 1995. The counter-aln davit of respondent No. 2 (Law secretary) is tendered on February 22, 1995. The petition was initially heard on June 27,1995 and after perusal of the pleadings, I directed the learned covernment Pleader to make the files including the papers in support of Ext. R2(a) -letter dt. March 7,1995 of the Registrar of this Court (respondent No. 7). After the files were made available and perusal thereof, the petition was heard again on July 5, 1995 and the judgment was reserved. Necessary factual matrix given below concerns submissions made by the petitioner-in-person, under the circumstances that the term of appoinouent is over as stated above. March 7,1995 of the Registrar of this Court (respondent No. 7). After the files were made available and perusal thereof, the petition was heard again on July 5, 1995 and the judgment was reserved. Necessary factual matrix given below concerns submissions made by the petitioner-in-person, under the circumstances that the term of appoinouent is over as stated above. After stating the facts with reference to the material on record, submissions could be crystathsed. 7. A. The initiation of the episode commences on the basis of communication (Ext. P1) addressed by the petitioner dated February 17,1995 addressed to the Law • Secretary (respondent No. 2) regarding problems of administration of the Office in regard to the conduct of Shri M.V. Mathai - Addl. covt. Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor in the office of the petitioner. The contents of the said communication speak for themselves. However, if the grievances are to be summarised for the purposes of this judgment, they are: - (a) Opening correspondence meant for the petitioner and on objections, use of abusive languages, threats as specified. (b) Against the roaster system introduced by the petitioner to appear in the conduct of bail applications, Shri Mathai's interference in collecting them, although allotted to other law officers, destroying the roaster itself. The communication contains graphic particulars and threats administered to the petitioner. (c) Detailed statements with particulars, naming Advocates, putting on record that Shri Matliai demanding amounts. of bribe, insisting on alloouent of matters in which Shri Mathai had personal interest. (d) Insisting permission of private practice at Kottayam and Trichur. The petitioner submitted that there should be a thorough enquiry into the matter. In fact the concluding paragraph needs reproduction and it is as follows, as quoted from Ext. P1: - "Hence I am humbly requesting you to enquire the matter personally and give me protection from threats of Mr.M.V. Matliai in administering the office. For granting the cheque applications he demanded commission from Advocate M.P. Abraham, Kuruvilla, C.K.A. Menon and some others. If a vigilence enquiry is ordered against him, I believe the truth will be revealed, in L. A.R.No. he endorsed no objection superseding my endorsement of objection in granting the cheque. It is highly essential to control Mr. Matliai's illegal activities to enable me to administer the office. If a vigilence enquiry is ordered against him, I believe the truth will be revealed, in L. A.R.No. he endorsed no objection superseding my endorsement of objection in granting the cheque. It is highly essential to control Mr. Matliai's illegal activities to enable me to administer the office. If no appropriate action is taken by your highness to redress my grievances, I will be put to an embarassed situation and will be unable to adminster the office and will affect the court work undoubtedly. Myself and my family members are afraid of the threat to do.away my life by Shri M.V, Matliai. I hope your highness will conduct an enquiry by taking evidences from Addl. covernment Pleaders, Staff in my office, Hon'ble District Judge and Additional District Judges. Mr. Matliai asked me one case C.C.1/1994 to be conducted by him because he has some interest in it. I did not allot the case to him. So he got angry and raised allegations against me. In fact, he is liable to be prosecuted. Regarding bail applications, there is no rule stated in the Act referred above and I may be permitted to continue the practices in Kottayam and Trichur." B. It is also necessary in this connection to refer to Ext. P2 which is a petition to the learned Chief Justice of this Court by the petitioner. Certain aspects of the said petition needs reproduction for this judgment: - (i) On 2-4-1994 at about 11 a.m. the Law Secretary, along with Secretary Raman Filial visited the D.G.P.'s office and said to me that they came for inspection as per the direction of the Law Minister. But the Law Secretary was very angry with me and was questioning me like a witness in the court. In the afternoon at 2 O'clock he started questions to me mid asked Mr. Raman Pillai to record my statements. I cannot understand this procedure. (ii) There must be a time limit for the inspections also. He started the questioning at 2 p.m. and finished at 9 p.m. Till that lime I was detained in the District covernment Pleader's Office by him. 2-4-1994 was a holy Saturday which was an important day for me. (iii) When he questioned me, I said I have to reveal a lot of secrets to the Law Secretary. So I should be questioned without their presence. But he refused. 2-4-1994 was a holy Saturday which was an important day for me. (iii) When he questioned me, I said I have to reveal a lot of secrets to the Law Secretary. So I should be questioned without their presence. But he refused. He was cross-examining me to satisfy the Additional covernment Pleaders and was trying to pick and choose answers from my statements to use against me. (iv) He received my complaint against the Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Matliai. In mat complaint I mentioned about the dealings of other Public Prosecutors. I asked him what is the stage of my complaint. But I was not given an answer. Even though he received my complaint on 26-3-1994, he did not question the Additional Public Prosecutors especially Mr. Matliai till 9 O' Clock on that day. I can't understand under what law. (v) I am sure that I was discharging my duties properly to defend the cases in the courts. As apublic prosecutor I should bring the truth before the court. As a citizen I should fight against injustice, so that I fought against the corruption and injustice done by the Additional Public, Prosecutors in my office and awaited for the efficacious remedy from the audiority. Now I have a strong doubt that the Law Secretary is biased and I will not get justice from him. From the reliable sources it is understood that he will utilise this opportunity to settle the cold war between himself and the Law Minister recently arose. I have no other remedy except to seek the protection of your highness. Hence your highness may kindly enquiry the matter and redress my grievances to enable me to perform my duties. C. What followed thereafter is termination dated May 27,1994 of Shri M.V. Mathai (order at Ext. P4). D. The following averments of paragraph 9 of the petition place on record the subsequent events, as are relevant: - "On 1-1-1995, a news was published in the Malayala Manoarama Daily stating thatmy services had been terminated on the reason dial the junior had conducted the sessions case and I also got a photocopy of the unattested, unsealed teleprinter message from the Collectorate. The true copy of the said letter dated 31-12-1994 is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P5. On 2-1-1995 when I went to the office Mr.P.C. lype, the Addl. The true copy of the said letter dated 31-12-1994 is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P5. On 2-1-1995 when I went to the office Mr.P.C. lype, the Addl. G.R. had given me aletter dated 2-1-1995 stating that he assumed charge as the District covernment Pleader. The original of the letter is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P6. I refused to relieve the charge stating that 1 had not received the order. On the next day Mr.lype locked the office with a new lock and kept the key with him. He took all the registers of the office and kept the same with him. He forcibly took all the bail applications and appeared before the court and res trained me from appearing before the courts. He disconnected the telephone in my chamber and he warned the clerks in the office not to obey me. To avoid the tense situation I took leave and wrote a letter to the District Collector stating that I had not received any letter from the Law Deparouent and I am unable to perform my duty or relieve my duty. The true copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P7." E. The impugned order dated December 30,1994 is received by the petitioner under the following peculiar circumstances averred in para. 10 of the petition: - "On 7-1-1995 when I was on leave on my residence, one Mr. Balakrishnan, Peon of the Collectorate, approached and handed over to me an unattested photocopy of the covernment Order No.363/94/Law dt.Thiruvananthapuram 30-12-1994, with a covering letter signed by "For Collector" without the designation of the signatory dated 4-1-1995 bearing No.M148981/94. The true copy of the letter dated 4-1-1995 is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P9. The original unattested photocopy of the covernment Order 363/94 which I had received from the Collectorate is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P10. I have received Ext. P10 and had given areccipt to the District Collector stating that I am unable to actaccording to an unattested photocopy. The true copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P11." 8. The record shows that one Mr.Varghese John who is averred to be the professional junior of ShriMathai presented a public interest writ petition No. O.P. 16607 of 19.94 on 25-11-1994 and this Hon'ble High Court(coram:Sreedhar an & Patnaik. The true copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P11." 8. The record shows that one Mr.Varghese John who is averred to be the professional junior of ShriMathai presented a public interest writ petition No. O.P. 16607 of 19.94 on 25-11-1994 and this Hon'ble High Court(coram:Sreedhar an & Patnaik. jj.) by the judgment dated January 23,1995, disposed it observing that there is no illegality committed by the petitioner in the conduct of the sessions case No.63/1992. It is necessary to observe that the Division Bench remarked, "We are clear in our minds that the petitioner (therein) was not trying to ventilate any public grievance." 9. Apart from the above facets, the contents of the counter of the Law Secretary (Respondent No. 2) and annextures are of an explosive character showing casual ness, lack of cogency and relevance and an approach foreign to the settled principles in regard to the consideration of the question. It is necessary that the comments need be postponed till the contents are referred to hereafter. The following aspects are emphasised in the counter: A. There were several complaints against the petitioner. Also there were petitions containing allegations and counter allegations against the covernment Pleader of Ernakulam. The Registrar of the High Court as per his letters dated 7-3-1994 and 23-3-1994 has informed the covernment that they had occasion to inquire into certain allegations against covernment Pleaders of Ernakulam and in inquiry reveals that most of the covernment Pleaders i.o the District are accepting bribes from the accused in many important cases. Reliance is placed on the copy at Ext. R2(a) and (b) to the counter. In Ext. R2(b) - letter of the Ilnd Addl. District and Sessions Judge - Ext. R2(c) is referred to. Reliance is also placed on the letter dated April 19,1994 of the District Collector - Ext. R2(d). With anxiety, these annexures are seen and I fail to understand or comprehend as to how they are pressed into service against the petitioner. I am at pains to record that the Registrar of this Court (see Ext. R2a ) records that most of the covernment Pleaders/ Public Prosecutors in the District were accepting bribes from the accused persons in many important cases, though no evidence is available to prove it. Firstly, no vigilence enquiry is necessary for the above observations. Secondly, the correspondence (Ext. R2a ) records that most of the covernment Pleaders/ Public Prosecutors in the District were accepting bribes from the accused persons in many important cases, though no evidence is available to prove it. Firstly, no vigilence enquiry is necessary for the above observations. Secondly, the correspondence (Ext. P2) addressed to the learned Chief Justice of this Court emphasising mention of witness appears to have been far away 'out of sight of the Registrar. Thirdly, the petitioner in her complaint (Ext. P1) has placed sufficient material, as referred to above. I am constrained to observe that reliance on this material exhibits start of casualness without any case against the petitioner. The petitioner as the head of the concerned office has placed on record (Ext. P1) everything and also the person behind this (Shri Mathai) and has justifiably requested enquiry. The contents of Ext. P2 also places material suggesting oblique motive of the Law Secretary and his method and style of functioning. Everything appears to be out of sight or having been left aside just casually. Then reliance is placed on Ext. R2(c) the letter the learned Ilnd Addl. District Judge, Ernakulam and Ext. R2(d) of the District Collector, Ernakulam. Reading these documents it can only be observed that the petitioner has placed in her complaint (Ext. P1) and representations (Ext. P2) nothing else, more than atleast two months before and demanded enquiry into the matter. In fact, the counter affidavit is totally silent about the factual situations that it was the petitioner who complained (Ext. P1) first in point of time and the probable reason for this silence is to be found in the representation (Ext. P2) of the petitioner to the learned Chief Justice of this Court. B. Thereafter, relying on Exts. R2(e),(f), (g), (h) and (i) of the counter, the followint averments are placed in the counter: "There was another letter with an allegation against the petitioner that she had accepted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as bribe from the mother of the accused in C.C.No. 1/94of the 1st Addl. Sessions Court, Ernakulam, copy produced and marked as Ext. R2(e). One Sri.P. V. Sukumaran Nair as per his letter dated 22-2-1994, copy produced and marked as Ext. R2(f) has reported that in LAR 1447,1449 & 1450 of 1988 the petitioner has appeared for the respondents and submitted "no objection" in court in cheque application of the LAR cases. Sessions Court, Ernakulam, copy produced and marked as Ext. R2(e). One Sri.P. V. Sukumaran Nair as per his letter dated 22-2-1994, copy produced and marked as Ext. R2(f) has reported that in LAR 1447,1449 & 1450 of 1988 the petitioner has appeared for the respondents and submitted "no objection" in court in cheque application of the LAR cases. It is also alleged that she had also received Rs. 30,000/- as bribe in the above cheque application. the Additional covernment Pleaders and Additional Public Prosecu tors of Emakulam in petition have alleged certain instances of misconduct and malpractice on the part of the petitioner. True copy of said complaint is produced 'herewith and marked as Ext. R2(g). Certanvotlier complaints were also received against the petitioner from various quarters. A complaint from Sri M.V. Matliai, Additional District covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor dated 5-3-1994 is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R2(h). Another letter from the said Addl. District covt. Pleader dated 23-4-1994 is also produced herewith and marked as Ext. R2(i)." I am aghast that the Law Secretary relies on anonymous communication without stating on averment that any attempt was made to ascertain the origin, authorship and authenticity and also chooses to rely on the assumed representation of the Bar Association. I am serious in referring to these documents sought to be relied upon in the counter-affidavit of the Law Secretary (respondent No. 2) because the contents are defamatory per se and have denuded the moral character and marital life of the petitioner. Atleast, what is expected to be borne in mind is the conclusive presumption under S.112 of the Evidence Act protecting the marital status of the petitioner. I am at pains to record that the petitioner who appeared in person could not prevent her natural embarassment to read out the contents and justifiably submitted that I should go through myself. (1) Ext. R2(e) is anonymous communication received by the Home Secretary on March 19,1994. It mentions that the petitioner is the kept-mistress of one Advocate (named) who is the father of her fourth child; she has taken bribes in many cases. The judicial constraints and restraints prevent my annoyance to be more eloquent in the context that reliance is placed on anonymous communication setting the modesty ablazse and containing wild and reckless allegations destroying the reputation of the petitioner. The judicial constraints and restraints prevent my annoyance to be more eloquent in the context that reliance is placed on anonymous communication setting the modesty ablazse and containing wild and reckless allegations destroying the reputation of the petitioner. The petitioner is more than justified in her indignation mat her family life and especially the attitude of her children, if they read and more emphatically that of her husband exhibit future signs of ruin and if not for material reliefs, it is prayed that this court has its duty to clear her character and remove the slur on her character and reputation on the basis of the material relied upon. 2. Ext. R2(f) is the communication from one P.V. Sukumaran Nair, dated 22-2-1994.1t is not disputed mat the address is so incomplete that the sender cannot be traced. The counter also is silent as regards any steps taken to contact. Without touching the contents, the least that can be observed is that me material cannot be considered to be cogent unless taken to its logical end. The contents also describe the petitioner as a mistress of another Advocate (named). I can note that wanton allegations of corruption and attacks on morality appears to be the convenient mode of maligning public figures. But the Law Secretary making use of such material in support of the averments would have to be classified as a threat to the rule of law because the Law Secretary is in the position of loco-parentis in relation to all the Law Officers. 3. Ext. R2(g) is a communication from the Addl. Government Pleaders and Addl. Public Prosecutors, Ernakulam received by the Law Deparouent on March 21,1994. The facts have relation to the complaint (Ext. P1) lodged by the petitioner herself placing her difficulties in the administration and distribution. In fact, the petitioner herself initiated and demanded enquiry. In addition, it will have to be noted that Sri M.V. Mathai, her immediate next law officer, is characterised by the petitioner as the trouble maker. This exhibit would have to be read with Ext. R2(h) which is the letter of Shri M.V. Mathai himself. This communication of Shri Mathai is dated March 17,1994, at or about the same time and contains his grievances. Atleast reliance on the communication of the rival ought to have been avoided in the process of reliance on the material in support. Ext. R2(h) which is the letter of Shri M.V. Mathai himself. This communication of Shri Mathai is dated March 17,1994, at or about the same time and contains his grievances. Atleast reliance on the communication of the rival ought to have been avoided in the process of reliance on the material in support. Ext. R2()1) is also a communication in Malayalam from Shri Matllai again. The contents of the communication have been explained to me by the learned covernment Pleader. In this context, the following averments of the petitioner in her affidavit in reply need to be reproduced: "Exhibits R2(g) and R2(h) are the crux and repetitions of Ext. R2(f). The contents of all these exhibits are one and the same. So it is clearly evident that Mr. Matnai is seeking the private vengeance against me with the co-operation of the other public public prosecutors on the reason that he could not influence me. I was always against the bribe and malpractices. I stood to perform my duties legally and according to professional ethics, so that I got the enemies." xx xx xx "Para. (1) of Ext. R2(F) is totally false and denied. I have not filed any execution petition inLARNos.1447, 1449 and 1450 of 1988 along witliS. Sreekumar because at that time I was not in his office. I had worked with him during 1985-88 period and thereafter I started independent practice, I left his office on a difference of opinion. The execution petitions came before the Court only in 1992. At that time my former Sri ceorge C. Varghese was the District covernment Pleader. M.V. Poulose the Addl. covernment Pleader, who was in charge of the said execution petitions which is borne out from the records of the D.G.P.'s office. Mr. P.C. lype is the person who submitted "no objection" for cheque application in the court. When I came to know about it, I filed three review petitions against that order to safeguard the interest of the State and they are pending before the Hon'ble Sub Court. Actually the dereliction of duty is done by Mr.P.C.Iype and Mr. M.V. Poulose. As per the K.G.L.O. (Rules) D.G.P. is responsible for each and every cases. So that I filed the review petition. I brought this matter before the Vigilence Committee of the District Court and the concerned judge admitted that it happened by an oversight. Actually the dereliction of duty is done by Mr.P.C.Iype and Mr. M.V. Poulose. As per the K.G.L.O. (Rules) D.G.P. is responsible for each and every cases. So that I filed the review petition. I brought this matter before the Vigilence Committee of the District Court and the concerned judge admitted that it happened by an oversight. I brought this matter before the 2nd respondent and he is aware of it. Not only that there was objection filed by the former D.G.P. Shri. ceorge C. Varghese in the above case; and it is pertinent to note that there was no appeals pending before the High Court for those cases and the amount was disbursed with sufficient bank guarantee. I deny that I have received bribe in that case. If an enquiry is conducted my innonce would be revealed." xx xx xx "Ext. R2(i) clearly shows the vengeance of Mr. Matnai on the and I am dening the entire allegations in Ext. R2(i) except the fact that he misbehaved with me and I made complaints against him and I filed a petition before the City Police Commissioner of Police protection to safeguard my life, because of his threat to do away my life. The atrocious usage in Ext. R2(i) shows the character of Ex. Additional Pleader Mr.M. V. Matnai." 4. Ext. R20) has also the same characteristic of anonymity. This has been effectively answered in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-reply in the following manner: - "Ext. R20) is a petition filed by one P.C.Joseph having no address and no date. I deny the entire contentions in the above exhibit R20). It is understood that from R20) (3, 4, 5,6) is a petition filed by the Hon'ble Members of the Bar Association and it is pertinent to note mat there are no signatories, names or seal of the Bar Association in the petition. No letter pad is used to file the petition. I suspect it is also the action of Shri M V . Mathai after his termination and immediately after the vigilance enquiry against Sri. Mathai conducted by Sri. A.T. Jose, Dept. of S P. of Vigilance on my complaint filed before the Chief Minister." 5. Ext. R2(k) can be understood and appreciated as the complaint is of Shri Babu Peter junior of Shri M.V. Mathai. So also Ext. R2(1) of so-called P.A. Francis who has no address which can be located. Mathai conducted by Sri. A.T. Jose, Dept. of S P. of Vigilance on my complaint filed before the Chief Minister." 5. Ext. R2(k) can be understood and appreciated as the complaint is of Shri Babu Peter junior of Shri M.V. Mathai. So also Ext. R2(1) of so-called P.A. Francis who has no address which can be located. 10. On the basis of the material on record certain expectations arising from the situation are disturbing. The basic feature that it was the petitioner who had her grievances placed by way of initiation of the process. It is difficult to appreciate in the process that the counter is reticent on these aspects. Another feature is available in the representation of the petitioner (Ext. P2) submitted before the learned Chief justice of this Court and as reproduced hereinbefore, the petitioner has expressed apprehension as regards the bias of the Law Secretary. Even the averments at para.5 of the counter go a long way to lend credence to apprehension expressed by the petitioner in her representation to the learned Chief Justice of this Court. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant averments: - "The allegations mat the 2nd respondent shouted at the petitioner is not correct. During the inquiry all the covernment Pleaders including the petitioner were present. The petitioner has stated that she has much to state about the Additional covernment Pleaders and hence she should be given the first opportunity. This was readily agreed to. She voluntarily started to say so many tilings. The 2nd respondent had to remind the petitioner many a time to cut short her reply. But she persisted in lengthy narration. It is a fact that she alone was instrumental for such a long time for the inquiry. However, the narration of the petitioner had been completed before 7 p.m. It is absolutely false that she was detained in the office till 9 p.m. The recorded statement was handed over to the petitioner and after reading the same she signed the statement. There was no threat or force to put the signature. However, the narration of the petitioner had been completed before 7 p.m. It is absolutely false that she was detained in the office till 9 p.m. The recorded statement was handed over to the petitioner and after reading the same she signed the statement. There was no threat or force to put the signature. The signature was appended withngly by the petitioner." In a situation where the incumbent of a public office of the District covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor who is, as per the Rules of Business of the State covernment is to be dislodged, and especially when she is appointed in pursuance of approval of the Cabinet, expectations are of a healthy treaouent of the process. I feel it unnecessary to refer specifically, but even the manner in which the termination is effected, as averred and which is attempted even to be justified, deserved a better and a healthy deal. 11.1 had full opportunity to carefully go through the files placed for my perusal. I have carefully digested them. Even though this judgment would become more weighty, keeping consentiously in mind the limitations of Art.226 of .the Constitution of India, together with self-imposed judicial restraint, I am refraining myself totally to refer to the contents thereof. Even then I cannot but observe that the vigilence enquiry of the High Court is too general and casual and the attitude is also expressed in the vague and innocuous record thereof in the letter dated 7-3-1994 (Ext. R2(a)) of me Registrar of this Court, leading to no purpose for this petition. 12. As is well known and as observed by Lord Macmillan of the Privy Council, there is no facet of human activity mat does not concern the function of a lawyer. Counsethng, Advocacy, improving his profession, the courts and the law, leadership in moulding public opinion and unselfish holding of public office, are the five essential functions of a lawyer, known as five lamps. It is in this spirit that a lawyer deserves a healthy deal. Added to this, the covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor stands on a higher pedestal in the system of administration of justice. Under the exercise of termination without asigning reasons, the treaouent to deal with the domestic servant is not the expectation. 13. It is in this spirit that a lawyer deserves a healthy deal. Added to this, the covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor stands on a higher pedestal in the system of administration of justice. Under the exercise of termination without asigning reasons, the treaouent to deal with the domestic servant is not the expectation. 13. Although the original term of the petitioner has expired and it is not possible in law to do anything in the matter in that direction and also in view of the factual position on record, the respondent No.7 has been appointed, the writ court cannot afford to be a stranger to the situation that the petitioner could be understood to bear the stamp that she is corrupt and further that contrary to the conclusive presumption under S.I 12 of the Evidence Act, she leaves the court with the wild, reckless and unsubstantiated allegations about the paternity of her fourth child. These aspects certainly amount to a slur on her character. On the material discussed above, without assessing truth or falsehood, it is my function to clear her character as accusations are not at all established. In fact, attempt to place such material is, as stated at the outset is a heavy dent. It is for these reasons that the impugned order is necessary to be quashed and set aside, which I hereby do. The impugned order shall not be of any impediment of the petitioner in any way. 14. The petitioner justifiably submitted that she underwent embarassment and mental tension. She has elaborated this aspect in her submisions. Reproduction of her submissions is unnecessary as it is not at all difficult to appreciate when a married woman with children is unjustifiably and illegally accused of being a mistress and a mother consequently. In the least, the counter affidavit should have avoided to place such material of scandalous nature on record. The writ petition is known to be a public law proceeding and in the context is different from private law of tort action. In the least, the counter affidavit should have avoided to place such material of scandalous nature on record. The writ petition is known to be a public law proceeding and in the context is different from private law of tort action. The Supreme Court (1993 (2) SCC 746 - Neelabati Mehra v. State of Bihar) illustratively for reference, has recognised this difference from private law proceedings and has declared that award of compensation in writ proceedings is available in public law and is apart from the private law remedy, such a course is evolvement of "new tools" to mould remedy in a pubic law proceedings. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and unjustifiable manner in which the petitioner has been dispatched from the dignified post of the covernment Pleader and Public Prosecutor of the District Court, together with, as observed at the outset in this judgment, in my judgment, facts justify an award of compensation. I direct that the respondent No. 1 the State of Kerala shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as a token to the petitioner as compensation, on or before August 15,1985.' 15. It is difficult to part with this judgment without certain observations in the context. Persons holding public office deserve a better deal. In spite of repeated judgments, the aggrieved parties are forced to approach this court every time. It has also become more man customary to hurl reckless allegations that are reached to the press and persons concerned are already tiled by the press. Situation becomes more than difficult to be defaced. The lament is the real desire in the context. 16. I do not know, but I experienced handicap of necessary assistance and had to depend more on my own efforts and conscience. The petitioner appeared in person. In the background of the seriousness and importance of the matter, I remembered very much Bhishmacharyas, Dronacharyas and Kripacharyas of the Bar - professional fraternity - may be some aspect of helplessness to leave the petitioner to defend herself. Helplessness also may be justified. I felt and I record. For the above reasons, the petition succeeds. The impugned order (Ext. P10) dated 30-12-1994 gets quashed and set aside. The petitioner leaves this court in this petition with no slur on her character and reputation. The respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs. Helplessness also may be justified. I felt and I record. For the above reasons, the petition succeeds. The impugned order (Ext. P10) dated 30-12-1994 gets quashed and set aside. The petitioner leaves this court in this petition with no slur on her character and reputation. The respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner on or before August 15, 1995 as observed above. Order accordingly.