PRINCE GEORGE Vs. GOVT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Advocate practicing in the Thrissur Bar is the petitioner herein. He was appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Thrissur for a period of three years under Government order dated 7-10-1991.. The challenge in this original petition is against termination of his service as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor, Thrissur before the expiry of the term of appointment.

(2.) Ext. P1 order of appointment would show that the appointment was subject to the terms and conditions provided under the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. R.9 of the above Rules provides that the term of appointment of a person appointed as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor shall be for a period of three years. But R.17 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, the Government may terminate the appointment of any Government Law Officer, other than a Special Government Pleader or Special Public Prosecutor at any time before the expiry of the term of his appointment without assigning any reasons therefore: Provided that such termination shall not be effected unless one months notice in writing has been given to him. It is by invoking the above provision under the rules, the service of the petitioner was terminated under Ext. P3 order dated 23-5-92. Instead of giving one months' notice, an amount of Rs.270/- was offered as monthly salary.

(3.) The petitioner attacks Ext. P3 on different grounds. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. 1991 (1) SCC 212 ) and that of this court in Mohammed Ashraff v. State of Kerala ( 1991 (2) KLT 818 ), the petitioner contends that he holds an office or a post under the State Government, that termination of his services was vitiated by arbitrariness and therefore violative of Art.14 of the constitution, that the decision taken to terminate his service was on the basis of the extraneous considerations and therefore mala fide, that the order of termination was passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice and that the action impugned in this original petition is amenable to judicial review. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the reason behind the decision to terminate his service as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor was that his name was seen included in an F.I.R. prepared in connection with Crime No.199/92 registered by the Thrissur East Police Station. It is alleged in the original petition that six petty traders in Sakthan Thampuran Market within the Thrissur Municipality had filed civil suits through petitioner's junior Sri. Sunil Jose, Advocate against the Thrissur Municipality seeking orders of injunction not to demolish the temporary trade shelters put up by the plaintiffs. Interim order of injunction restraining the Municipality from demolishing the structurers was also obtained. Separate Advocate Commissioners were appointed in the suits to inspect the spot and to file reports as to whether there were any temporary sheds in existence at the time of the order of injunction. It is further alleged that the Municipal Councillors alongwith certain other persons attempted to pull down the sheds on 4-5-92 in violation of the order of injunction. The attempt of the Chairman and the Councillors was resisted by the plaintiffs. Large number of persons including six Advocate Commissioners and the counsel of the plaintiffs were present at the spot when the alleged incident happened. Crime No.199/92 was registered in connection with the above incident. In the F.I.R. one Lazar is shown as the first accused who is alleged to have committed assault of Mr. K.V. Balan, Ex. Municipal Chairman and present Councillor. The petitioner shown as the second accused is alleged to have restrained Sri. K.V. Balan. The other accused are abettors to the crime. According to the petitioner, he was not even present at the place of incident at the relevant time. Further allegation in the original petit ion is that the Municipal Council of Thrissur had a grouse against the petitioner as he had occasion to appear in many cases against the Municipality in his professional capacity. Apart from the above the Council had a feeling that it was the petitioner who was behind the order of Injunction obtained by six petty traders against the Municipality. Therefore with an intention to implicate the petitioner also in the incident which happened on 4-5-92, they passed a resolution on the same day requesting Chief Minister as well as Law Minister of the State to take stringent action against the petitioner alleging that it was the petitioner who gave instructions and guidance for the incident which led to stabbing of Sri. K.V. Balan, Ex. Municipal Chairman and present Councillor. A copy of the resolution has been produced as Ext. P4 along with the reply affidavit.