Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 149 (MP)

Ramesh Chandra Puranik v. State of M. P.

2005-02-01

RAJENDRA MENON

body2005
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. As the orders impugned passed by State Government in all these cases, i.e., WPs No. 2465/04, 2296/04, 2328/04 2521/04, 2398/04, 2391/04, 2357/04 and 2329/04 are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Petitioners in all these cases were appointed as Government Pleaders or AGPs on various dates. However, by orders passed on various dates, identical in nature, their appointments have beer cancelled on the ground that the State Government has received various complaints against the petitioners considering the same, State Government in accordance with the Law Department's Manual, has decided to terminate their services after one month. Petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders mainly or the ground that the orders are stigmatic in nature and as they are passed without hearing them and in violation of the principles of natural justice, are not sustainable. 4. It is common ground that the identical orders were passed in the cases of various other Government Advocates Government Pleaders, Additional Government Pleaders in various Districts. A bunch of petitions challenging similar orders were filed by the aggrieved persons in the Principal Seat of this Court a Jabalpur. By a common order passed in WP No. 4522 of 2004 {Rajendra Tiwari v. State of M.P. and others [ 2005 (2) JLJ 79 ]. all these petitions have been allowed or 16.12.2004 and the orders passed by the State Government were quashed. Bench of this Court has held that the orders being stigmatic in nature, are unsustainable and has allowed the petitions with costs of Rs 1,000/- in each of the cases. 5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Principal Seat learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are entitled to similar benefits and the orders impugned in these cases are also liable to be quashed. 6. However, Shri S.B. Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General, argued that in WPs No. 2357 of 2004 and 2521/04 term of the Advocate concerned has expired and therefore, no relief can be granted to these petitioners. It is further stated by Shri Mishra that in all the cases except in WP No. 2357/04, orders have been passed on 21st of November, 2004 filed as Annexures R-l to R-5 in the return of the State Government, withdrawing the stigma or adverse remark in the order and changing it into an order simpliciter. It is further stated by Shri Mishra that in all the cases except in WP No. 2357/04, orders have been passed on 21st of November, 2004 filed as Annexures R-l to R-5 in the return of the State Government, withdrawing the stigma or adverse remark in the order and changing it into an order simpliciter. It is therefore stated that as the adverse remark has been withdrawn, order passed a Principal Seat will not apply on all these cases. That apart, it is stated that in the order dated 16.12.2004 in the case of Rajendra Tiwari (supra), an earlier judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in MP No. 325 of 1990 [Devi Prasad Sharma v. State of M.P.] has not beer considered. Accordingly, pointing out these differences, Shri Mishra submitted that no relief can be granted to the petitioners 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is seen that a learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the matter in detail and by order dated 16.12.2004 has held that the order is stigmatic in nature, it has been passed without hearing the person concerned in violation of the principles of natural justice, accordingly quashed the same. 8. Shri Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General wants this Court to take a different view on two counts, one that the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Devi Prasad (supra), and second that the adverse remark in each of the impugned orders has been withdrawn. It is seen that both these grounds an misconceived and therefore unsustainable. In the case of Devi Prasad Sharma, question of passing stigmatic order on the basis of a complaint was no considered. That was a case where the term of Government Advocate and Public Prosecutor was terminated by a simpliciter order and that being so, aforesaid judgment will not apply in these cases where the orders are stigmatic in nature and have been passed by way of punishment. 9. So far as withdrawal of the remarks are concerned, it is seen that this Court had issued notices to the respondents and the Principal Seat of this Court in WP No 4535/04 passed interim order and by following the aforesaid interim order orders were passed by this Court also or 22.11.2004. 9. So far as withdrawal of the remarks are concerned, it is seen that this Court had issued notices to the respondents and the Principal Seat of this Court in WP No 4535/04 passed interim order and by following the aforesaid interim order orders were passed by this Court also or 22.11.2004. It was only after the petitions were filed and interim orders were passed in these cases, that the so called remedial measure was initiated for withdrawing adverse remark. Mere withdrawal of the remark does not mean that the action taken is without considering the complaints, and as the orders have been passed on the basis of complaints received without hearing the petitioners merely on the ground that the adverse remark has been withdrawn, it is not a fit case to take a different view from the one taken by brother K.K. Lahoti, J. in his order dated 16.12.2004 in WP No. 4522/04 and other cases. The grounds raised by the petitioners and the justification given by the respondents in the return have been considered by brother Lahoti in his order dated 16.12.2004 and I find no reason to take a different view from the one taken by him. Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed. Impugned orders passed in each of the cases are quashed. 10. Merely because in two cases, being WPs No. 2357/04 and 2521/04, term has expired, that would not mean that the petitions have been rendered in fructuous The petitioners in those cases are entitled to challenge the order even after expiry of their term as these orders are stigmatic in nature, except that they would not be entitled to get any benefit after their tem is expired. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed for the reasons and grounds indicated in the order passed on 16.12.2004 in WP No. 4522 of 2004 and other cases. In all these petitions the respondents are directed to take similar action and give to the petitioners similar benefits as are being granted to other persons in pursuance to the orders passed by the Principal Seat in the case referred to hereinabove. 11. Petitions stand allowed with no orders as to the costs.