Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Machindra Ganpat Gate, was appointed as an Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleader for Pune District on 07/07/2014 for two years, re-appointed on 29/04/2017 for another two years, and his engagement was extended for one year from 29/04/2019. On 15/02/2021, the Department of Law and Judiciary, State Government, issued a communication terminating his engagement under Rule 30(5) of the Rules for the Conduct of Legal Affairs of Government, 1984, on the ground that he had moved an application for cancellation of bail without prior instructions. The Petitioner challenged this termination by way of a writ petition. The Petitioner argued that he had acted bona fide in filing the bail cancellation application in Sessions Case No.62 of 2018, as the bail was granted to an accused despite this Court having refused bail to a similarly placed accused. The application was signed by the Investigating Officer and annexed the order of this Court dated 17/01/2019 in Criminal Bail Application No.147 of 2019. The Court noted that the Petitioner's action was based on instructions from the Investigating Officer and was in the interest of justice. The Court held that the termination was arbitrary and unsustainable, as the Petitioner had not acted without instructions but had followed the Investigating Officer's directions. The Court also observed that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given before termination, violating principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the impugned communication dated 15/02/2021 and directed the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner's engagement as Assistant Public Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleader, Pune District, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Engagement - Rule 30(5) of the Rules for the Conduct of Legal Affairs of Government, 1984 - The Petitioner, an Assistant Public Prosecutor, was terminated for moving a bail cancellation application without prior instructions. The Court held that the Petitioner acted bona fide based on instructions from the Investigating Officer and in the interest of justice, and the termination was arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 1-9) B) Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Bona Fide Action - The Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of bail in Sessions Case No.62 of 2018, which was signed by the Investigating Officer and annexed an order of this Court refusing bail to a similarly placed accused. The Court found that the Petitioner's action was justified and not a ground for termination. (Paras 3-6) C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - The termination was effected without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the impugned communication and directed reinstatement of the Petitioner's engagement. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the Petitioner's engagement as Assistant Public Prosecutor under Rule 30(5) of the Rules for the Conduct of Legal Affairs of Government, 1984, on the ground that he moved an application for cancellation of bail without prior instructions, was valid and justified.
Final Decision
The Court quashed the impugned communication dated 15/02/2021 and directed the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner's engagement as Assistant Public Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleader, Pune District, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Rule 30(5) of the Rules for the Conduct of Legal Affairs of Government
- 1984
- Termination of engagement
- Assistant Public Prosecutor
- Cancellation of bail
- Instructions from Investigating Officer
- Bona fide action
- Natural justice
