JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel. 2. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impeached the order of the State Government dated 03.05.2017, whereby renewal of his term as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Agra has been refused and his engagement in the said capacity has been terminated with immediate effect. 3. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential order dated 06.05.2017, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra whereby he has been relieved from the office of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Agra. 4. The submission of leaned counsel for the petitioner is that the sole ground on which the term of the petitioner has been refused to be renewed is an inquiry report said to have been submitted by the Additional District Judge in respect of a file which is said to have gone missing and since while placing reliance on the said inquiry report the State Government has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such the impugned order is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even while conducting the inquiry on the basis of which the impugned orders have been passed, the inquiry officer had not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner inasmuch as he was not given any opportunity either to produce his own witness or to cross examine the witnesses produced against him. His submission, thus is that on the basis of such an inquiry which has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, impugned orders could not have been passed for the reason that same would amount to condemning the petitioner unheard. 6. His submission, thus is that on the basis of such an inquiry which has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, impugned orders could not have been passed for the reason that same would amount to condemning the petitioner unheard. 6. Laying emphasis on fair procedure to be adopted by the State authorities in all their actions, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned action visits the petitioner with significant civil consequences, inasmuch as his term has not been renewed though there were favourable reports and recommendations both by the District Judge and by the District Magistrate in his favour and as such, in such a situation before passing the impugned order on the basis of the report submitted by the Additional District Judge, it was incumbent upon the State Government to have given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. The facts of the case which are necessary to be noticed are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) Agra on 27.01.2011 temporarily. However, he was thereafter appointed vide order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the District Magistrate for a period of about a year and in terms of the said order, this period was last on 04.08.2012. The petitioner was thereafter, vide appointment order dated 05.12.2012, appointed on the said post for a period of three years or till he attained the age of sixty years, which ever was earlier. The term of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) Agra in terms of the order dated 05.12.2012 thus lasted on 04.12.2015. 8. Thereafter, the District Judge vide his letter dated 23.01.2016 addressed to the District Magistrate, Agra has recommended the petitioner for renewal of his term. The said letter dated 23.01.2016 is on record as annexure No.6 to the writ petition, according to which the District Judge, Agra had opined that the legal knowledge and work and conduct of the petitioner was outstanding and his integrity was also certified. The District Judge by said letter further opined that the petitioner had shown his legal skills while working in Courts of different Additional District Judges and all of them have opined about good behaviour and conduct of the petitioner. 9. In view of the said satisfaction recorded by the District Judge, he recommended that petitioner’s term be renewed. The District Judge by said letter further opined that the petitioner had shown his legal skills while working in Courts of different Additional District Judges and all of them have opined about good behaviour and conduct of the petitioner. 9. In view of the said satisfaction recorded by the District Judge, he recommended that petitioner’s term be renewed. In continuation of the recommendation made by the District Judge, the District Magistrate vide his letter dated 31.03.2016 also gave opinion in favour of the petitioner and recommended that petitioner's term as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) Agra be renewed. The said letter dated 31.03.2016 is also on record as annexure No.7 to the writ petition. The said recommendation in favour of the petitioner was made on the basis of the recommendation received from the District Judge, Agra and also on the basis of various certificates issued by different Courts as also by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra certifying petitioner’s character, conduct and general reputation. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendations made by the District Judge and District Magistrate, it appears that the process of renewal of the term of the petitioner was going on in the State Government. However, in the mean-time before completion of the said process, the District Judge, Agra constituted an inquiry vide her order dated 24.04.2016, requiring the Additional District Judge, Court No.13 to conduct an inquiry in relation to a case file relating to Sessions Trial No. 847 of 2010; State Vs. Dinesh Chandra Pachauri, Under Section 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Shahganj, Agra, which was reported to have gone missing. 10. The Additional District Judge pursuant to the said direction given to him by the District Judge on 24.04.2016 conducted an inquiry and submitted his report dated 14.12.2016 to the District Judge. On receipt of the said inquiry report submitted by the Additional District Judge, the District Judge sent the said report to the District Magistrate vide her letter dated 16.12.2016. The District Magistrate on receipt of the inquiry report from the office of the District Judge sent the said report to the State Government vide his letter dated 09.01.2017 with the request to take appropriate action in the matter. 11. The District Magistrate on receipt of the inquiry report from the office of the District Judge sent the said report to the State Government vide his letter dated 09.01.2017 with the request to take appropriate action in the matter. 11. From a perusal of the impugned order, dated 03.05.2017 whereby the term of the petitioner has been refused to be renewed and his engagement as A.G.D.C. (Criminal) has also been cancelled, it is more than clear that the only ground of refusal of renewal of the term of the petitioner is the inquiry report submitted by the Additional District Judge which was received from the office of District Magistrate concerned in the State Government having been routed through the District Judge. The impugned order does not spell out any other material which can be said to have been found adverse against the petitioner and which has been made the basis of the impugned action by the State Government. 12. The question for consideration in this case in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016 submitted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge could form a material adverse to the petitioner on the basis of which petitioner’s term as A.D.G.C could have been refused to be renewed or not, especially in absence of observance of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as before passing the impugned order the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the State Government requiring him to file his comments on the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016. 13. No doubt, if any material comes to the notice of the State Government, it is always open to the State Government to take into account such material for the purposes of consideration of cases of renewal of term of the District Government Counsels/ Additional District Government Counsels or any Government Advocate known by any other name. However, so far as facts of this case are concerned, there is a report submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 14.12.2016 in relation to the conduct of the petitioner and while conducting the said inquiry, except for recording the statement of the petitioner by way of an affidavit, opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend himself has not been afforded. A clear assertion in this regard has been made by the petitioner in paragraph-2 of the writ petition which has not been specifically denied by the State Government while filing the counter affidavit. 14. On receipt of the report dated 14.12.2016, in our considered opinion, since the State Government was in the midst of the process of considering renewal of the term of the petitioner, the course legally open to the State Government was to have confronted petitioner with the said inquiry report dated 14.12.2016. That would have sufficed to meet the requirement of observance of the principles of natural justice. However, neither it is reflected from the impugned order nor has it been stated by the State Authorities in the counter affidavit filed in this case that petitioner was ever confronted with the said enquiry report though it is this report which is the sole basis of the impugned decision. It is thus found that petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed by confronting him with the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016. 15. We may also, at this juncture itself, observe that if the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016 would have been submitted after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce the defence witnesses and by permitting him to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him, it may or may not have been necessary for the State Government to have afforded another opportunity to the petitioner once the report dated 14.12.2016 was received. However since in this case opportunity to defend the petitioner was not afforded to him even by the Additional District and Sessions Judge while conducting the inquiry based on which he submitted inquiry report dated 14.12.2016, as such if the State Government was of the opinion that such inquiry report needs be considered, then it was incumbent, in our considered opinion, upon the State Government to have given the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by confronting him with the said inquiry report, dated 14.12.2016. 16. 16. Even otherwise, the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016 has been termed to be a preliminary non-judicial inquiry, though the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual does not contemplate any kind of inquiry either preliminary or final, however the manner of inquiry which is reflected from the order dated 14.12.2016 itself makes it clear that before arriving at the conclusion regarding the guilt of the petitioner, the inquiry officer had not afforded opportunity to the petitioner so that he could have availed the same for defending himself. In such a situation, the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016 could have been treated, at the most, to be a fact-finding inquiry by the State Government and thereafter either a full-fledged inquiry ought to have been conducted by associating the petitioner with such a full-fledged inquiry, or at least the petitioner ought to have been provided with a copy of the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016 inviting his objection/representation/explanation to the same. 17. State Government having not taken recourse to either of the aforesaid two options open to it, has thus, in our opinion, acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly impugned action taken by the State Government in this case against the petitioner, is not liable to be sustainaed. 18. We may also not loose sight of the fact that so far as the claim of the renewal of the term of the petitioner as A.D.G.C (Criminal) is concerned, both the district level officers, that is, the District Judge as also the District Magistrate have strongly recommended that the petitioner’s term as A.D.G.C (Criminal) be renewed. The recommendations made by these two officers are not merely bald recommendations, rather letters through which these recommendations have been made clearly express their opinion about work and conduct and general reputation of the petitioner as also his integrity. 19. We are of the opinion that if the State Government while considering the renewal of the petitioner intended to rely on the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016 submitted by the Additional District Judge, the petitioner ought to have given an opportunity of hearing in the matter, in as much as he ought to have been confronted with the said inquiry. 19. We are of the opinion that if the State Government while considering the renewal of the petitioner intended to rely on the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016 submitted by the Additional District Judge, the petitioner ought to have given an opportunity of hearing in the matter, in as much as he ought to have been confronted with the said inquiry. It is also noticeable that the District Officer i.e. the District Magistrate had given his report about the suitability of the petitioner from the administrative point of view, his reputation in public, his character, integrity and professional conduct as per the requirement of Paragraph 7.08 (3)(ii) of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual. Similarly as per the requirement of paragraph 7.08 (3) (I), the District Judge in his report had given an estimate of the quality of the work of the petitioner from judicial stand point keeping in view the different aspects of the petitioner’s capacity as a lawyer and his professional conduct. 20. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 3rd May 2017 passed by the State Government and consequential order dated 6th May 2017 passed by the District Magistrate which have been annexed as annexure No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. The State Government is directed to reconsider renewal of the term of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) Agra afresh. While doing so the petitioner shall be afforded opportunity of hearing, in as much as he shall be permitted to file his objection/representation/explanation to the inquiry report dated 14.12.2016 submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra, in case the State Government intends to rely on the said inquiry report. 21. If the case of the petitioner is to be considered for empannelling him afresh as A.D.G.C. and the State Government intends to rely on the enquiry report dated 14.12.2016, the same procedure as chalked out above shall be followed. Decision in terms of the observations made herein above shall be taken by the State Government within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 22. In the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs.