B RADHAKRISHNA Vs. MOHAMMAD ABDUL GHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court's misplaced sympathy with a professional's career thinking that in the ends of justice stigma of removal from the post of Public Prosecutor which would get attached to the professional career to the 1st respondent herein should be replaced by acceptance of his resignation from the post which has culminated into a proceeding at the instance of the petitioner herein, an advocate, who has brought to the notice of this Court how the 1st respondent has used the opportunity of delay in acceptance of his resignation for promoting his professional career. The 1st respondent was appointed as Public Prosecutor for the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Khammam under S. 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in G.O.Ms. No. 752, Home (Courts. C) Department dated 5-11-1994. The appointment was for a period of three years from the date of taking charge which could be terminated with one month's notice on either side. His (the 1st respondent) appointment was terminated on certain allegations vide G.O. Rt. No. 2873 dated 30-10-1995.

(2.) 1st respondent filed in this Court W.P. No. 25562 of 1995. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of his petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the 1st respondent invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent in W.A. No. 1702 of 1995. The Court, in appeal, took notice of the fact that termination of the appointment of the 1st respondent as Public Prosecutor would attach a stigma; accepted his (1st respondent) undertaking to submit his resignation from the office of the Public Prosecutor within two weeks by the order dated 28-12-1995 which is as follows : "Appellant herein is present in person. He has made a personal statement and explained his conduct. He has undertaken to submit his resignation from the office of the Public Prosecutor, Khammam, within two weeks from today. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the respondents shall have no difficulty in accepting the resignation of the appellant and proceeding strictly in accordance with S. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to fill in the vacancy so created in the office of the Public Prosecutor within the shortest possible time. We have gone through the record. We have good reasons to hold that situations as created in the instant case by either party should better be avoided by all concerned. We see good reasons to hold particularly because the appellant has chosen to tender resignation from the office, that allegations against him are not sustainable and they are all, thus cancelled and rejected subject to the resignation and acceptance as we are assured on behalf of the respondent, of the same. The appeal and the writ petition are disposed of accordingly." Petitioner herein has stated that the 1st respondent did not submit the resignation and for this he has relied upon the contents of a letter by the 3rd respondent herein, i.e., the District Magistrate and Collector, Khammam to the 2nd respondent herein, i.e., the Secretary to Government, Home (Courts. C) Department which is as follows :

(3.) In response to the notice of the Court, the 1st respondent has shown cause and chosen to give his own version and interpretation of the order in appeal passed by this Court. While he has stated that he complied with the order of the Court by sending a letter of resignation to the 2nd respondent herein without informing however the 3rd respondent (which fact is asserted by the 3rd respondent in his counter-affidavit) and that until his resignation was accepted by the 2nd respondent, he continued to function as the Public Prosecutor. It appears he (the 1st respondent) successfully defeated the order passed by the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent to remove him from the office of the Public Prosecutor and took advantage of the delay in the Government's action upon the letter of resignation that he purportedly sent on 9-1-1996.