REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAM CHANDRA JOSHI Appellant

V/S

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

TAYLOR V. TAYLOR [REFFERED TO]
NAZIR AHMAD V. KING EMPEROR [REFFERED TO : AIR 1936 PC 253 16]
MAHADEO V. SHANTIBAI [REFFERED TO 9]
STATE OF MIZORAM V. BIAKCHHAWNNA [REFFERED TO : (1995) 1 SCC 156 16]
DEEP CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFFERED TO : AIR 1961 SC 1527 16]
PATNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. LAKSHMI DEVI [REFFERED TO 16]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SINGHARA SINGH [REFFERED TO : AIR 1964 SC 358 : 1963 ALL LJ 1093 16]
SRIMATI KANTA KATHURIA VS. MANAK CHAND SURANA [REFFERED TO 9]
NIKA RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFFERED TO : AIR 1972 SC 2077 16]
UNION OF INDIA STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAN LAL KAPOOR:K N MISRA [REFFERED TO : 1974 LAB IC 338 22]
RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE VS. GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE [REFFERED TO 16]
MADHUKAR G E PANKAKAR CHANDRAKANT MAHADEO PRADHAN VS. JASWANT CHOBBILDAS RAJANI:DILIP SADASHIV DEHERKAR [REFFERED TO 9]
CHETTIAN VEETIL AMMAD C MATHEW JAYASHREE TEA AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED RAVI KARUNA KARAN E V PAUL P A SIVASUBRAMONIAN V G KURIAKOSE C A VENKATACHALLAM CHETTIAR SUBHADRA SMT VARGHESE MARIAM P J VETRIVEL P M KURUVILLA THO VS. TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TAL [REFFERED TO 16]
MUNDRIKA PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFFERED TO 10,11]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. J A C SALDANHA:J A C SALDANHA [REFFERED TO : AIR 1980 SC 326 16]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY VS. DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI [REFFERED TO : 1983 LAB IC 419 26]
A K ROY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFFERED TO : (1986) 4 SCC 326 : AIR 1986 SC 2160 16]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. L K RATNA [REFFERED TO : (1986) 4 SCC 537 26]
MUKUL DALAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFFERED TO : (1988) 2 JT 280 8]
S N MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFFERED TO : AIR 1990 SC 1984 24]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ATUL KRISHNA SHAW [REFFERED TO : 1991 (SUPPL) 1 SCC 414 23]
KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFFERED TO : 1993 AIR SCW 77 : 1993 ALL LJ 4 19,20,29,31]
MAHESH CHANDRA VS. REGIONAL MANAGER U P FINANCIAL CORPORATION [REFFERED TO : 1992 ALL LJ 1202 : 1992 AIR SCW 3629 22]
KRISHNASWAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFFERED TO 25]
HARPAL SINGH CHAUHAN SARVESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFFERED TO : AIR 1993 SC 2436 : 1993 AIR SCW 2843 17,31]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH K L SHARMA R D GUPTA ARUN KUMAR MISHRA VS. U P STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION :U P STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD :STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFFERED TO 29]
HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFFERED TO : 1994 AIR SCW 3699 12]
HARPAL KAUR CHAHAL VS. DIRECTOR PUNJAB INSTRUCTIONS PUNJAB [REFFERED TO : (1995) 8 SERV LR 828 27]
RAVINDER SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFFERED TO : (1995) 1 SCC 138 : 1994 AIR SCW 4438 27]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. U P GOVERNMENT COUNSEL CRL WELFARE ASSOCIATION [REFFERED TO : 1994 AIR SCW 4852 30]
LIC OF INDIA VS. CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE [REFFERED TO : (1995) 5 SCC 482 : 1995 AIR SCW 2834 22]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA [REFFERED TO : (1995) 6 SCC 527 : 1996 AIR SCW 247 : 1996 ALL LJ 407 31,37]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SHYAMA PARDHI [REFFERED TO : (1996) 7 SCC 118 : 1996 AIR SCW 2709 27]
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMN VS. MANAGING SOCIETY GOSWAMI GDSDC [REFFERED TO : 1996 AIR SCW 1995 35]
J N GANATRA VS. MORVI MUNICIPALITY MORVI [REFFERED TO : (1996) 3 SCC 495 : 1996 AIR SCW 3130 16]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT [REFFERED TO : (1997) 6 SCC 574 : 1997 AIR SCW 4043 : 1998 LAB IC 378 27]
PATNA UNIVERSITY VS. DRAMITATIWARI MRS [REFFERED TO : 1997 AIR SCW 3544 : 1997 LAB IC 3364 27]
M P ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. S S MODH [REFFERED TO : 1997 AIR SCW 3554 : 1997 LAB IC 3369 27]
KISHORILAL CHARMAKAR VS. DISTT EDUCATION OFFICER [REFFERED TO (1998) SCC 185) 1991 27]
R K TRIVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFFERED TO : 1998 SCC (L AND S) 1112 27]
MEERA MASSEY MRS ABHA MALHOTRA S C BHADWAL VS. S R MEHROTRA [REFFERED TO : 1998 AIR SCW 969 : 1998 LAB IC 1041 27]
UPEN CHANDRA GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFFERED TO : (1998) 3 SCC 381 : 1998 AIR SCW 1144 : 1998 LAB IC 1074 27]
VASANT D BHAVSAR VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFFERED TO 26]
RABINDRA KUMAR NAYAK VS. COLLECTOR MAYURBHANJ ORISSA [REFFERED TO : (1999) 1 JT 591 : 1999 AIR SCW 774 10]
LT COL K C SUD VS. S C GUDIMANI [REFFERED TO (DELHI) 9]
VIJAY SHANKAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFFERED TO : 1999 AIHC 1148 : 1998 ALL LJ 2654 (ALL) 13,20]
A RAMACHANDRAN VS. A ALAGIRISWAMIGOVT PLEADER HIGH COURTMADRAS [REFFERED TO 11]
RAMESHWARI DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFFERED TO 26]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have been filed against the order of removal of Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Additional Government Advocates working in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the District Courts subordinate to it. As common questions of law are involved, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases have variance to some extent and, thus, in brief, the facts of each case would be considered separately for disposal of the case, but first legal issues are being examined.

(2.) At this stage it may be mentioned that petitioners had been appointed under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr. P. C.") read with the provisions of The Rajasthan Law and Judicial Department Manual, 1952 (for short, "the Manual") and tenure of some of them had been extended for a definite or indefinite period.

(3.) The main arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners had been that once petitioners had been appointed, they cannot be removed without due process of law; Rule 16(1) confers an unfettered and unbriddled power upon the Government to remove the duly appointed Public Prosecutors without assigning any reason; any order, not supported by reasons, is liable to be quashed and, therefore, the impugned orders of removal of petitioners are bad and deserve to be quashed.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAM CHANDRA JOSHI AND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address