IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11127 of 2005 Sri Jitendra Kumar Verma, son of Late Dhunushdhari Prasad, resident of Mohalla New Chandmari, Durga Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Motihari, Distt. East Champaran. ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenew, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 4. The Assistant Commissioner (Legal) Customs, H.Qrs. Patna. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Preventive Division, Motihari. 6. Sri Jay Prakash Mishra, Special Public Prosecutor, Customs and Central Excise, Civil Court, Motihari. ------ Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 5. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter No. C-VIII(17)II-Cus/Misc/L/2000/5065 dated 25.6.2004 by which the engagement of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor, Customs and Central Excise in the Civil Court, Motihari, has been terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the terms of engagement dated 25.8.2003, such engagement was for a period of three years but could have been terminated without assigning any reason by the Government or by the Counsel after giving one month notice on either side. By the order impugned, the petitioner has been asked not to work as Special Public Prosecutor and was 2 directed to hand over the brief without any delay. The order impugned mentioned the reason as unsatisfactory service. This Court feels that the said letter is not in good taste and it cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. In that view of the matter, this Court would not have hesitated to quash the same. However, in view of the fact that much time has elapsed, this Court would only restrict itself to quashing part of the order impugned dated 25.6.2004 by which his service has been held to be unsatisfactory. This would however not mean automatic reinstatement of the petitioner as the Special Public Prosecutor. The order impugned will not stand against the petitioner in any future consideration or for any other purpose including his consideration for fresh engagement by the authorities. The writ petition stands disposed off. S.Ali ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)