Supreme Court modifies termination order of Maharashtra Law Officers: State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Kishor M. Gadhave Patil & Ors. (2017) INSC 723 (05 September 2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 723

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a government terminate the services of its law officers mid-term, and what are the implications of such termination? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the termination of several Additional Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders, and Additional Public Prosecutors in Maharashtra. The core issue revolved around the legality of the State Government’s decision to cancel their appointments under the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointments, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984. The bench comprised Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The State of Maharashtra appointed 15 advocates as Additional Government Pleaders (Addl.GP), Assistant Government Pleaders (AGP), and Additional Public Prosecutors (APP) for the High Court Bench at Aurangabad on various dates, with a significant number appointed on 05.10.2013. These appointments were accepted, and the officers began their duties. However, on 28.08.2015, the State Government issued an order canceling all appointments, citing Rule 30(5) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointments, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984. This action led the affected officers to challenge the cancellation in the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and quashed the cancellation order dated 28.08.2015. The State of Maharashtra then appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court’s order on 29.01.2016. During the pendency of the appeal, the terms of the respondents expired.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointments, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984. Specifically, the court considered sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 30.

Rule 30(5) states:

“A Law Officer shall be liable to be removed from his office at any time, if he is guilty of any act or conduct which, in the opinion of Government, in the Law and Judiciary Department, is incompatible with his duties as such Law Officer. The decision of Government in the Law and Judiciary Department in such cases shall be final.”

Rule 30(6) states:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules(2) and (3), but save as otherwise provided in sub-rule(5), the appointment of any Law Officer, which is at the pleasure of the Government may at any time, be terminated by Government in the Law and Judiciary Department by giving him one month’s notice or, where any retainer is payable to such Law Officer, be terminated forthwith by paying him one month’s retainer in lieu of such notice.”

Arguments

The State of Maharashtra argued that the High Court should not have quashed the cancellation order, citing precedents from the Supreme Court. The State relied on judgments in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 212], State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Johri Mal [(2004) 4 SCC 714], and State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr. [(2016) 15 SCC 289].

The respondents contended that the cancellation order under Rule 30(5) was stigmatic and punitive. They argued that the order was not a simple termination but implied misconduct, thus requiring a proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard. They also argued that due to the stay order, they could not work, and therefore, they should be paid their full remuneration until their original term expiry date. Alternatively, they sought payment from the date of the stay order until the expiry of their terms.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

• What orders need to be passed while disposing of the appeal, considering that the respondents’ terms had expired during the pendency of the appeal?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the cancellation order dated 28.08.2015, treating it as having been passed under Rule 30(6) of the Rules. This modification meant that the termination was not due to any misconduct but was a simple termination at the pleasure of the government, requiring a one-month retainer in lieu of notice.

The Court directed the State to comply with Rule 30(6) by paying one month’s retainer to each respondent as fixed in their appointment letters, within three months from the date of the order. The Court also clarified that the State is free to consider the respondents for future appointments, and the modified cancellation order would not be an impediment.

The Court stated, “we consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to modify the order of cancellation dated 28.08.2015 by treating the same to have been passed under Rule 30(6) of the Rules.”

The Court further added, “the interest of justice would be fully met if the cancellation order dated 28.08.2015 is held to have been passed under to Rule 30(6).”

The Court also observed, “the State would be free to consider the cases of any of the respondents for their appointment on any of the post in future, in case, if the State so desires.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a just resolution given the peculiar circumstances where the respondents’ terms had expired during the pendency of the appeal. The Court aimed to balance the State’s prerogative to terminate appointments with the need to provide some relief to the respondents who had been terminated mid-term. The modification to Rule 30(6) reflects a pragmatic approach, avoiding a complex inquiry into the reasons for termination and opting for a simpler resolution.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court modified the termination order, treating it as a termination under Rule 30(6) instead of Rule 30(5) of the Maharashtra Law Officers Rules.
• The State Government was directed to pay one month’s retainer to each of the terminated law officers in lieu of notice.
• The modified order does not prevent the State from considering the terminated officers for future appointments.
• This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness in the termination of government appointments, even those held at the pleasure of the government.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Maharashtra to pay one month’s retainer in lieu of notice to each respondent within three months from the date of the order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

(Not Applicable as there is no discussion of specific amendments in the judgment)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a government terminates the services of a law officer, it must adhere to the relevant rules and procedures. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that a termination under Rule 30(5) implies misconduct, whereas Rule 30(6) allows for termination at the pleasure of the government with a one-month notice or retainer. This judgment does not change existing law but provides a practical application of the rules in a specific context.

Conclusion

In the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Kishor M. Gadhave Patil & Ors., the Supreme Court modified the State Government’s order terminating the services of several law officers. By treating the termination as one under Rule 30(6) of the Maharashtra Law Officers Rules, the court ensured that the officers received one month’s retainer in lieu of notice. This decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and provides a practical resolution in cases where government appointments are terminated mid-term.