The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Patna High Court order asking the competent authority to reinstate a lawyer as a public prosecutor, whose services were terminated by the state government.
The top court, however, gave the liberty to the lawyer to apply for the post of public prosecutor when some advertisement in this regard is issued by the state government.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was told by advocate Manish Kumar appearing for Bihar that due process of law was followed in the termination of the respondent Jai Prakash Mishra.
He said that proper show cause notices were issued but he did not file any reply and despite repeated requests, he did not file any review reports of the case.
Kumar said that the High Court order is erroneous as it asked the competent authority to reinstate him on the post at the time when another person has been appointed to his post. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Mishra, said that all the other public prosecutors were allowed to continue but his services were terminated.
The bench said, ”We see from the records that the performance of your client (Mishra) was very poor. He is a lawyer and if we say anything further it may affect his future prospects. It will be better if we set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that his term had come to an end”.
The bench thereafter dictated the order and noted that the original term of the respondent (Mishra) as a public prosecutor at Motihari in the district of Bihar was between the period of August 23, 2016, and August 22, 2019. It said, ”The High Court by its impugned judgement dated April 26, 2022, has set aside the order dated October 23, 2019, terminating the service of the respondent while granting liberty to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law and to take a decision on whether the respondent should be reinstated and continue as a public prosecutor”. It also noted the submission of the Bihar government and said that the grievance of the petitioner is that the High Court has clearly ignored the fact that the performance of the respondent was duly assessed and show cause notices were issued to him following his repeated failure to submit review reports. It said that the state government has submitted that the decision to terminate the services of the respondent as a public prosecutor could not be faulted. The bench said, ”As on date the admitted position is that the original term of the petitioner as the public prosecutor has already ended on August 22, 2019. Hence, there would be no occasion to continue on service after that day. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court”. It clarified that in the event any fresh advertisement is issued, it would be open for Mishra to apply for the post of the public prosecutor and his application would be evaluated on merits in accordance with the law.
The Bihar government has challenged the High Court order before the top court and said that they have furnished details of inquiry conducted by the district magistrate and opportunity was granted to give the explanation over several facts and circumstances highlighting the negligent, malicious, and wrongful conduct of the respondent.
It said that the High Court has failed to consider the responses of the state government and asked for his reinstatement as public prosecutor.
(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
