SHANTINATH S PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been placed before us on account of the Referral Order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge and the following two issues have been referred for consideration by the Division Bench:

(2.) The petitioner came to be appointed way back in 2000 for a period of one year as Assistant Government Pleader under Order 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as an Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He was issued similar orders and the last of them was dated 23.05.2007 which appointed him likewise, but for a period of two years. In each appointment letter, it was made clear that it was strictly subject to the conditions of service laid down in the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984 (for short, "Maharashtra Law Officers Rules, 1984"). It was further stipulated that the Government reserves the right to revoke/modify/annul the order without assigning any reasons.

(3.) As per the petitioner, his appointment as an Assistant Government Pleader or an Additional Public Prosecutor does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he has only a contractual assignment with the State Government which could be discontinued at any time by either of the parties. He is not subordinate to any officer of the State Government and there is no employer-employee relationship between him and the State Government. It is simply a professional engagement as an Advocate to conduct the cases on behalf of the State Government and, therefore, he cannot be called a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In support of these contentions, he has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the State of U. P. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sharma & ors., 1996 AIR(SC) 864 and State of U.P. & anr. Vs. Johri Mai, 2004 AIR(SC) 3800. He has also placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court (DB) in the case of Govindrao Namdeorao Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2001 3 BCR 543. Mr. Shingnapurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, urged to answer the first issue under reference in the negative.