- (1.) Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.
(2.) The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the government order dated 4/8/1992 whereunder the earlier orders of the government contained in government order dated 20/1/1990 were revised partly. Under first order (dated 20/1/1990, it was directed as follows: "Since after complete examination of the explanation of Shri Janardan dubey, the governor has reasons to believe that Shri Janardhan Dubey is not guilty of charges communicated through above resolution. Therefore, the governor of Bihar exonerating Shri Janardan Dubey from all those charges drops the departmental enquiry against him and in partial modification in letter No. 813 dated 22/4/1988 cancelled the government concurrence for instituting criminal case against him. " the subsequent government order dated 4/8/1992 states: "After review of facts it has transpired that at the time of issuance of abovesaid resolution actually no decision was taken by the government for dropping the departmental proceedings and withdrawing/cancelling of government sanction for lodging criminal case and the abovesaid resolution to that extent was issued without jurisdiction. Therefore, after due consideration under government order the decision for dropping departmental proceedings and to cancel the sanction for lodging criminal case as contained in resolution No. 108 dated 20/1/1990 is deleted. "
(3.) A reading of the subsequent order discloses that no reasons are given therein for reviewing the earlier orders. The statement that no decision was taken by government while issuing the earlier order is a bald statement and no attempt has been made before us to substantiate it. While the government has certainly the power to revise its orders, it must be for good reason. No such reason is shown to have existed while issuing the second order. In the circumstances, we quash the government order dated 4/8/1992.;