ivil Appeal No 1932 of 1982
From the Judgment and Order dated 79
1981 of the Patna High Court in CR No 341 of 1980 R
MC Mahajan Hemant Sharma and Ms A Subhashini for the Appellant
MP Jha for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI J
This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 791981 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna Ranchi Bench Ranchi in Civil Revision No 341 of 1981
The short question that falls for consider ation in this appeal is whether the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a public officer  as defined in sec tion 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Section 80 of the Code requires a notice to be issued as prescribed before instituting a suit against a public offi cer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such pubic officer in his official capacity
The respondent herein instituted a suit against the appellant the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner without a notice under section 80 CPC
The objection in this behalf was repelled by the trial court 183 and the High Court holding that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is not a public officer
According to the appellant the Commissioner is a public officer within the meaning of the term occurring in section 80 of the CPC and therefore the suit is incompetent
The term public officer  is defined in section 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Public Officer means a person falling under any of the descriptions in clauses a to h
It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner falls under the descrip tion in clause h which reads as under h Every Officer in the service or pay of the government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty
 It is necessary to refer to the relevant provision in the for the purpose of determining whether the appel lant answers this description
Under section 3 the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette frame the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme for the estab lishment of a provident fund for employees and specify the coal mines to which the said scheme shall apply
The fund shall vest in and be administered by the Board constituted under section 3A
The Board thus constituted consists of a a Chairman appointed by the Central Government b the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner ex officio and others specified in the section
The other relevant provisions read thus 3B
The Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A shall be a body corporate under the name specified in the Notification constituting it having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued
3C Appointment of Officers 1 The Central Government shall appoint a Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and shall be subject to the general control and superintendence of the Board
184 4
The method of recruitment salary and allowances disci pline and other conditions of service of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner shall be such as may be speci fied by the Central Government and such salary and allow ances shall be paid out of the Fund
 It is thus seen that the Commissioner is an officer appointed by the Central Government as the Chief Executive Officer of the Board
Though subject to the general control of the Board discipline and the condition of service are such as may be specified by the Central Government
The salary and allowances are paid out of the fund
The Commis sioner may exercise the powers exercisable by the Central Government under the Act or scheme framed thereunder on delegation of such power under section 10C
It will be clear from these provisions that an officer in the service the Government by virtue of his office is appointed as Commissioner by the Government and he performs public duties
The fact that the Commissioner receives the salary and allowances out of the fund and not from the Government during the tenure as Commissioner would make no difference when the description as an officer in service of the Government is answered
The word service  in section 2 17h must necessarily mean something more than being merely subject to the orders of Government or control of the Government
To serve means to perform function do what is required for
The Commis sioner appointed by Government performs the functions as envisaged in the Act and the scheme thereunder
When he is actually acting in the capacity of Provident Fund Commis sioner he does not cease to be an officer in the service of the Government
In Liquidator of Society Sangakheda Kalan Co operative Bank Hoshangabad vs Ayodhyaprasad Shiamlal  Pollock J held that liquidator is a public officer as he is appointed by the Government and discharges public duties
This decision is distinguished in Kuppu Govinda Chettiar vs Uttukottai Co operative Society AIR 1940 Madras 831 holding that Deputy Registrar acting as Liquidator is not a public officer
The reasoning adopted is that qualiq uidator he is not an officer in the service of the Govern ment
In Vishnu Wasudeo Joshi vs TLH Smith Pearse AIR 1949 Nagpur 362 it was held that a person who was a member of the Indian 185 Educational Service but whose services were lent to the Rajkumar College Raipur as principal is a public officer within section 217h and did not cease to be in the service of the Crown by reason of deputation
In Commissioner of Wakfs Bengal vs Shahebzada Mohammed Zahangir Shah the Court said that the expression public duty refers to duty concerning to the affairs or service of the public and the word public  may include any class of the public or any community
In this view the Commissioner of Wakfs who functions in relation to such public endowments in general was held to perform a public duty and therefore a public officer within the meaning of section 80 of the Code
In Kamta Prasad Singh vs The Regional Manager FCI AIR 1974 Patna 376 the question arose whether the officers of the Food Corporation of India are public officers
The Corporation is a body corporate
The Court held that Govern ment does not include a Corporation and that officers of the Corporation are not in the service of Government and are not public officers
These are cases where the concerned officer did not hold his office in the Corporation by virtue of his being a Government employee
In the present case the Provi dent Fund Commissioner holds the office of Commissioner on appointment by Government by virtue of his office
His services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Board
He does not therefore cease to be an officer in the service of the Government
The payment of his pay out of the Fund does not alter his status as Government employee
We are therefore of the opinion that the courts below have erred in holding that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commi sioner is not a public officer within the meaning of the term in section 217h of the CPC We accordingly allow the appeal and remit the case to the trial court for disposal in the light of what has been stated above
GN Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent was a member of a political party
Conse quent upon the defeat of the party in Mayoral elections held in March 1989 the party felt that there was cross voting and there were traitors among them and the respondent made a declaration that such traitors would not be spared
Thereaf ter the respondent was arrested in connection with the murder of one of the Corporators
He was accused of having committed offence under Section 31 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act 1987 besides of fences punishable under Sections 148 149 120 B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code
The designated court released the respondent on bail while the investigation was pending
This appeal by the State is against the order of the designated court
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 1
Sub Section 8 of SeCtion 20 of the Act clear ly provides that unless the court is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent is not involved in disruptive activities bail shall ordinarily be refused
Even under the provisions of Section 437 and 438 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure the powers of the Sessions Judge are not unfet tered
75F 2
Where the offence is of serious nature the Court has to decide the question of grant of bail in the light of such considerations as the nature and seriousness of offence character of the evidence circums 74 tances which are peculiar to the accused a reasonable possibility of presence of the accused not being secured at the trial and the reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with the larger interest of the public or such similar other consideration
76B C 3
In the instant case the salient principles in grant ing bail in grave crimes have not been taken note of
The Court was obsessed by the fact that the respondent was associated with a political party and was oblivious of the nature of the allegations made against him and the relevant materials indicating that the respondent had been making utterances inciting violence
76D 4
This court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the lower court in granting or refusing bail but in cases where bail has been granted on irrelevant considerations such as the status or influence of the person accused and regardless of the nature of the accusa tion and relevancy of materials on record this Court would not hesitate to interfere for the ends of justice
75G H 76A