MAHENDRA KUMAR MUDGAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 6-2-2009 we dismissed the writ petition for the reasons to be given subsequently. Now the reasons are stated hereunder : the petitioner was working as District government Counsel (Criminal) Ghaziabad which shall in brevity be called as DGC (Criminal) and by the impugned order dated 27-1-2008 the respondent No. 1 refused to renew the term of the petitioner as DGC (Criminal) Ghaziabad. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that District Judge Ghaziabad had recommended the renewal of the term of petitioner but the respondent No. 1 mainly on the basis of the report of respondent No. 3 refused to renew the term of the petitioner which is illegal and against the provisions of L. R. Manual. It was further submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking as the same has been passed without assigning any valid reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of State of U. P. and another v. Jauhari Mal, 2004 (Vol. IV) SCC 714 : (2004 All LJ 2650) and stressed that the opinion of the District Judge should be given primacy. It is further submitted that renewal of the DGC (Criminal) is not dependent upon the sweet will of the respondents and they cannot be removed arbitrarily without any cogent and justifiable reasons and lastly it was contended that the report of the respondent No. 3 is tainted with malice and the impugned order is illegal and unreasonable and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of india.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has supported the impugned order and has referred to the report of the respondent No. 3 dated 5-7-05. It was also stated that apart from the case referred to in the said report dated 5-7-05, there were numerous other complaints against the petitioner and few documents to this effect have been brought on record along with the counter affidavit. For ready reference para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 is quoted as follows :-

(3.) LEARNED standing counsel further stated that the petitioner was working as dgc (Criminal) and lastly his term was renewed up to 8-12-2005 but prior to the said date some serious complaints were received against the petitioner regarding his working as DGC (Criminal ). One Rashid Hussain had complained that in case crime No. 235 of 2004 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 ipc accused person succeeded in getting the bail from the Court of District and Sessions judge, Ghaziabad on 7-5-05. It was further stated that the petitioner failed to point out due to extraneous consideration that the case of the accused persons were entirely different from that of Akhalak who had been granted bail by this Court mainly on the ground that he was 70 years old person. It was further submitted that the complainant had forwarded a copy of the FIR along with a copy of the, order of this Court as well as of Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. The bare perusal of the order of this Court made it abundantly clear that this Court had taken the age factor into consideration while granting bail to Akhalak, as such parity could not have been claimed and granted. He further submitted that on the basis of aforesaid complaint explanation vide letter dated 17-5-05 was called for from the petitioner and during the course of an enquiry it transpired that the age of accused Ashraf, Julfikar and rashid was only 30,35,20 years respectively and such at no cost those accused persons could have got the benefit of the order of this Court, but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge, ghaziabad