IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12712 of 2002 SADHANA JHA, WIFE OF SRI ARVIND KUMAR JHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-TULSI NAGAR, BANK COLONY, P.S.-BARARI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ................................................... PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LEGAL), BHAGALPUR. 5. THE INCHARGE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT CIVIL COURT, BHAGALPUR. .................................................. RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 5.5.2009 Heard Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure nos. 1 & 2 respectively to the writ application whereby and whereunder the petitioner, an Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.), was sought to be relieved of certain assignments given to her in capacity of A.P.P. Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the impugned orders would submit that while it may be within domain of the State and its officials to engage Public Prosecutor/Additional Public Prosecutor in terms of Section 24/25 of the Cr.P.C. and also allot work to such A.P.P., they will have absolutely no jurisdiction to malign any advocate and pass an adverse order till such advocate appointed as an A.P.P. is confronted with the specific adverse circumstance/materials. In this context, he has relied on the statements made in paragraph no.8 of the writ application wherein it has been categorically asserted that Annexure nos. 1 & 2 were passed by the respondent without giving any opportunity of 2 hearing to the petitioner. Counsel for the State with reference to the counter affidavit would submit that this writ application has become infructuous, inasmuch as, the tenure of the petitioner on the post of A.P.P. has already come to an end in the year 2003 itself. He would also submit that there is no element of any stigma in annexure nos. 1 & 2 because the Government had found certain difficulty in continuing to take work from the petitioner on the ground of certain administrative exigency as explained in the counter affidavit. This Court would find that at least wordings of Annexure-2 go to show that the petitioner was relieved from the work of A.P.P. even prior to completion of her tenure by seeking to withdraw the files of all the cases being conducted by her on the basis of certain allegations made against her. Such relevant part of the contents of Annexure-2 reads as follows : - i= la[;k&lh@,0&02&02@2000@3411@m0A fcgkj ljdkj] fof/k ¼U;;½ foHkkxA &&&&&&&& izs"kd Jh jkts'k dqekj] ljdkj ds izHkkjh lfpo] fcgkjA lsok esa] ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh HkkxyiqjA iVuk]] fnukad 18 vDVwdj] 2002A fo"k; %& Jherh lk/kuk >k] vij yksd vfHk;ark] Hkkkxyiqj esa muds dk;Z ls eqDr djus ds lEcU/k esaA &&&&&&&& egksn;] ^^mi;qZDr fo’k;d Jh f”ko ukjk;.k >k] izHkkjh yksd vfHk;kstd] Hkkxyiwj ds i= la[;k 989] fnukad 14&8&2002 ftldh izfrfyfi ftyk inkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj dks Hkh fn;k x;k gS] ds izlax esa 3 funs”kkuqlkj lwfpr djuk gS fd Jherh lk/kuk >k ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi ,oa mBk;s x;s fcUnqvksa ds leh{kkijkUr Jherh lk/kuk >k] vij yksd vfHk;kstd] Hkkxyiqj ls rkRdkfyd izHkko ls dksbZ eqdnek ugha vkoafVr djus ,oa lHkh ljdkjh eqdnek okil ysus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa izHkkjh yksd vfHk;kstd ls lEidZ dj “kh?kz dkjZokbZ dh tk;sA vkns”k fuxZr frfFk ls bls ykxw le>k tk;A** The aforementioned extracted portion of the impugned order (Annexure-2), therefore, would go to show that there was clearly a stigma attached against the petitioner in the impugned order and when it is admitted in paragraph no.12 to the counter affidavit that such order was passed without giving any notice and/or opportunity of hearing to her,, this Court must hold that the impugned order as contained in Anenxure-2 so far it attaches stigma to the working of the petitioner as A.P.P. cannot be sustained. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1990 SC 537. Since the tenure of the petitioner on A.P.P. has already been completed during the pendency of this writ application no useful purpose would to served by quashing the two impugned orders but as the petitioner is practicing Advocate this Court must hold and declare that Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 to this application being impugned orders are bad orders and would not be used to the detriment of the petitioner in her professional career in future by any person including the Respondents. . With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)