Vijayaraghavan vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 22 May, 2006
4. In view of the pleadings in the counter-affidavit and in the reply affidavit, it may not be proper for this Court not to advert to the same while disposing of the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in Prince George v. Government of Kerala 1992 (2) KLT 849. In that case, this Court had held that the termination of the services of the Public Prosecutors though the appointment stems from a contract has to satisfy the test of Article 14. In that case, Ext.P3 order was issued on the basis of R.17 which enabled the Government to terminate the appointment of any Government Officer at any time before the expiry of the term without assigning any reason. It was only in the counter-affidavit that it was disclosed that the petitioner was the 2nd accused in Crime No. 199 of 1992 before the Thrissur Town Police Station. As a Government Pleader was expected to keep up his integrity, reliability and reputation, his services was terminated. It was found that mere inclusion of the name in the F.I.R. by itself was insufficient to terminate the services of the District Government Pleader even without a show cause notice to him. Suffice it to note that the termination of the petitioner from the panel of Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, according to the respondents, was not simple termination for no reason but for valid reasons and in respect of which no notice or hearing was given to the petitioner to explain his position. In the light of the fact that the Standing Counsel for the respondents did not seriously argue about such complaints against the petitioner it can be concluded that for those reasons the petitioner could not have been relieved from the panel of Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board. Before dealing with the allegations against the petitioner made for the first time in the counter affidavit it has to be made clear that it was not on "direction" by this Court; but it was a case where the counsel took notice and submitted that if the petitioner wanted to know the reasons the same could be given by filing a counter affidavit. That is clear from the order dated 27-1-2006 which reads as follows: "Adv. Sri. Anjal C. Vijayan, Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board takes notice on behalf of first respondent. Issue notice to the second respondent. Standing Counsel for the first respondent submits that he will file a statement within one week."