Rajasthan High Court Expunges 'Unsatisfactory Service' Remarks Against Legal Aid Counsel, Cites Impact On Young Lawyer's Career

Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the District Legal Service Authority (DSLA) against a young Legal Aid Defence Counsel that terminated his services and passed stigmatic remarks about his services being negligent and unsatisfactory, to the extent of expunging the adverse remarks that were passed without any enquiry, while retaining the termination.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that petitioner-counsel was engaged on a contractual basis under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme (LADCS) which was discontinued with a direction to State Legal Services Authority to not renew any contracts. In this light, services of the petitioner could not be allowed to continue.

For context, the Court petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Legal and Defence Counsel under LADCS for 2 years, which was further extended for 1 year. Meanwhile, his services were terminated by an order passed by the Chairman, DSLA, with aforementioned remarks, without conducting any enquiry. This order was challenged.

The petitioner argued that the remarks were stigmatic and would cause severe hardship to him and his future, being a young lawyer, which could not have been made, without conducting any enquiry.

On the contrary, the State argued that LADCS was discontinued with the orders of RSLA, with existing contracts not to be renewed. Further, reference was made to Clause 6 of LADCS that laid down termination procedure empowering the Chairman, DSLA, to terminate the services of any Defence Counsel without any notice or approval of Chairman, RSLA.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused with provisions of LADCS, and agreed with the arguments of the State, partially. At the same time, it was opined that,

“This fact is not in dispute that the aforesaid remarks of the respondent No.2-Chairman, DLSA are stigmatic and would certainly affect the future, life and career of the young Counsel, such as the petitioner. Such remarks should not have been passed against the petitioner without, conducting any enquiry, as per the mandate of law…”

In this background, the Court held that since LADCS has been discontinued, services of the petitioner could not be allowed to continue, however, since the stigmatic orders passed with the termination order were without any enquiry, those would stand quashed and expunged.

“It is made clear that whatever remarks have been passed against the petitioner in the impugned order would not be treated as stigmatic against the petitioner for all purposes, in his future endeavours.”

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.