JUDGMENT N. K. Bhattacharyya, J. This matter has been assigned to the Court. 2. Heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Biswanath Sanyal appearing with Mrs. Keya Banerjee and the learned Advocate for the opposite party No.2, C.B.I., Mr. Biswa Ranjan Ghosal appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Dipak Kumar Mukherjee. None of the learned Advocates for the State appears. Considered the materials on record. 3. The fact leading to this revisional application is that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time retainer doctor in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited, Calcutta. His appointment of part-time doctor was made effective with effect from 22nd July, 1974. The terms of the appointment, inter alia, were that he will examine the employees of the company, give medical advice and treatment and shall also prescribe medicine as may be necessary for such treatment. He will certify fitness or otherwise of the employee either of the clerical staff/subordinate staff level but such employee shall resume his duty after expiry of the period of sick leave and he will countersign and authenticate or otherwise all medical bills submitted by the employee as referred to above. During the emergency he may be called upon to attend the case at head office, Calcutta, and shall take such expeditious action as may be deemed desirable and fit in addition to the stipulated time mentioned in the letter of appointment. A consolidated sum of Rs. 600/- has been fixed for his professional service. In clause 7 of the letter of appointment it has been clearly mentioned that no other benefit, privilege, amenity or allowance shall be applicable or paid to him. In paragraph 8 of the said letter of appointment it has been termed that this appointment is an arrangement which arrangement can be terminated by either side by giving 3 calendar months written notice at any time to the other. Against this part-time retainer doctor an Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, lodged a complaint, inter alia, alleging that the said part-time doctor by his acts and conduct caused criminal breach of trust, cheated the company, forged bills and thus committed offences punishable under sections 109, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption (Act II) of 1947. This complaint was made before the court of the Third Additional Special Judge, Calcutta, and Special Court Case No. 4 of 1983 was started thereof. Cognizance was taken trial started and some of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined. At this stay by this revision the petitioner has challenged the proceeding itself on the ground that the accused being a part-time retainer doctor is not public servant within the meaning of section 21, Clause 12(d) of the Indian Penal Code and as such no special court case is maintainable against him. 4. Appearing for the accused petitioner, Mr. Biswanath Sanyal contended that from the letter of appointment, which is Annexure 'B' to the revisional application, it is seen that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time doctor in the head office of the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited at Calcutta. He further contended that the accused petitioner was in a fixed pay and not in the pay-scale. No other benefit of the company was made available to him. He further contended that this appointment was by way of an arrangement as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the letter of appointment which is terminable by giving notice of three months from either side. According to Mr. Sanyal, this appointment was not in connection with any post or in respect of an office and as such he cannot be said to be an employee of the company. In support of his contention Mr. Sanyal relied on a Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi & Ors., reported in AIR 1973 SC 330 . 5. Mr. Biswa Ranjan Ghosal, learned Advocate appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, added opposite party No.2 herein, on the other hand, contended that the appointment of the •accused petitioner was in respect of a post, i.e. in respect of a post of part-time doctor and that he was holding an office. 6. It appears that on a very short point the case hinges. The point is whether the accused petitioner is a public servant or not? 7. From the letter of appointment it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time doctor this has also been mentioned in the petition of complaint that the accused-petitioner was appointed as a part-time retainer doctor. The point is whether the accused petitioner is a public servant or not? 7. From the letter of appointment it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time doctor this has also been mentioned in the petition of complaint that the accused-petitioner was appointed as a part-time retainer doctor. Nowhere it has been specified whether the petitioner was appointed either in a post or in respect of an office. In such circumstances it becomes necessary to look into the letter of appointment to find out what was the nature of appointment of the petitioner; whether he was appointed in a post or he was appointed to hold an office. It has also become necessary to see whether the petitioner was an employee of the company, meaning the Indian Iron and Steel Company. From the letter of appointment it is seen that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time doctor in the head office. From paragraph 7 of the said letter of appointment it appears that the petitioner was not given the benefit or privilege, amenity or allowance other than the consolidated pay which has been specified in paragraph 6 of that appointment letter, amounting to Rs. 600/- only per month. This appointment has been termed by the company as an arrangement as will appear from paragraph 8 of the said appointment letter and the service became terminable by giving three calendar months written notice by either of the party. If an appointment is made by way of arrangement, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that such appointment is an appointment for holding any office or appointment to a post. If an appointment is made by way of arrangement, then in my view, it cannot be said that he is in employment of the company. That appointment can be made by way of convenience or for meeting the exigency of the company or the employer as the case may be. But that does not take such appointment within the meaning of employment. In such circumstances, in my view, as the petitioner has been appointed by way of arrangement he cannot be said to be a public servant. At this stage I must records that Mr. But that does not take such appointment within the meaning of employment. In such circumstances, in my view, as the petitioner has been appointed by way of arrangement he cannot be said to be a public servant. At this stage I must records that Mr. Ghoshal insisted upon calling for the records for the purpose of examination by this Court the evidence already adduced on behalf of the prosecution and other materials which have been produced by the prosecution thereon. In my view, that will not require in view of the letter of appointment itself because in the letter of appointment that appointment was made by way of arrangement. This position cannot be improved even by subsequent evidence. The appointment started on the basis of the letter dated 17th July, 1994. In such circumstances, as I find that the accused petitioner is not a public servant, the proceeding against the petitioner on an assumption that the petitioner is a public servant cannot be sustained in law. 8. I, accordingly, quash the proceeding against the accused petitioner, being Case No.4 of 1983, pending in the court of the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta. The revisional application IS, therefore, allowed. Revisional application allowed.