MACHINDRA GANPAT GATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dtd. 15/02/2021 that has been issued by the Department of Law and Judiciary, State Government, as a result of which the Petitioner's engagement as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Pune District, has been terminated by relying upon Rule 30(5) of the Rules for the Conduct of Legal Affairs of Government, 1984 ( for short, the Rules of 1984).

(2.) The Petitioner was initially appointed as an Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleader for a period of 2 years on 07/07/2014. The Petitioner was re-appointed for a further period of 2 years on 29/04/2017. On 26/04/2019, a fresh order was issued extending his engagement for a period of 1 year from 29/04/2019. On the ground that the Petitioner had moved an application for cancellation of bail without giving instructions, the impugned communication dtd. 15/02/2021 has been issued and the Petitioner's engagement as Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleader has been put to an end.

(3.) Mr. Veerdhawal Kakade, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that considering the seriousness of the matter by which bail was granted to an accused in Sessions Case No.62 of 2018 notwithstanding the fact that bail had been refused by this Court to a similarly placed accused, the Petitioner had moved an application for cancellation of bail. This application was duly signed by the Investigating Officer. Alongwith the said application dtd. 17/12/2020, various documents were annexed, which included the order passed by this Court on 17/01/2019 in Criminal Bail Application No.147 of 2019. By the said order, this Court had refused to grant bail to other accused with the observation that the case of the said accused was similar to the case of the accused to whom bail was refused. He thus submitted that such application was bonafide moved by the Petitioner and that the same did not amount to any act or conduct incompatible with his duties, as provided under Rule 30(5) of the Rules of 1984. The Petitioner's removal was thus stigmatic. It was urged that by virtue of the order dtd. 28/04/2020, the Petitioner was entitled to continue with his engagement until further orders. The impugned communication was liable to be set aside and the Petitioner ought to be restored on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleader.