LALY VINCENT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The flood-light of the two Supreme Court ( AIR 1991 SC 537 - Shri Lekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. = 1991 (1) SCC 212 ) & 1988 (3) SCC 144 - Mukul Dalal v. Union of India) pronouncements also followed by three decisions of this Court ((a) 1994 (1) KLJ 684 - Susey Jose v. G. Janardhana Kurup (Thomas, J.) (b) Unreported - Cr.Misc.C.No.1607 of 1994 dt.17-1-1995 - K.S. Abdul Rauf v. State of Kerala (c) 1992 (2) KLT 849 - Prince George v. Govt. of Kerala) is no guidance at all to the Law Secretary of the State Government. Proceedings of this petition would leave this court with a feeling that decisions do not guide the situation and it is left again for this court to deal with the heavy dent to the governance by the rule of law.

(2.) The appointment of the District Government Pleader by the State Government is not merely a professional engagement like that between a private client and his lawyer, nor is it purely contractual. A public element is attached to it. There is an element of continuity of the appointment. The appointment by itself gives a certain amount of status and adds to the reputation. At the time of appointment itself suitability in the context becomes the prime consideration, appointment itself being presumed in its process of the best amongst those available. The method of appointment itself is that, in the instant case, it requires the decision of the Cabinet, pustulates endorsement for the recommendation based on seriousness of the situation. Having regard to the provisions of S.24, 25, 321 Cr.P.C., 1973, the appointee gets entrusted with the statutory responsibility to act thereafter solely in the interest of administration of justice.

(3.) These weighty facets of the status attached to the said appointment do not pale into insignificance totally in the matter of "termination at any time without assigning any cause Or reason". Although non assigning of any reason or its non communication may be appreciated as based on public policy, however, it cannot be ignored that such a termination by itself is a slur on the character and status of the concerned person. It cannot be forgotten that character, reputation and status is the achievement perhaps of generations of the person concerned. It must be appreciated that "termination without assigning any reasons" can never be equated "without existence of any cause or reason". It follows that it is necessary that the authority must possess cogent and satisfactory reasons in furtherance of the object. It also becomes really relevant to see whether the exercise of such important power smacks of arbitrariness, casualness resulting in denuding the person concerned of his character and reputation unjustifiably as a result of the exercise of this power in such a manner that the person concerned would be at pains of sufferance of assassination of character as a result. The material also requires examination and scrutiny as a result to find out whether there are dark shadows of sweet will in the process, an element of absence of known methods and manifestation of aspects of haste.