M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 22.11.2003 issued under the signature of Registrar (Vigilance), Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi whereby petitioner was directed to show cause as to why recommendation should not be made for removing him from the post of Public Prosecutor.
(2.) DURING pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been served with an order as contained in letter dated 9th February, 2004 issued by the Secretary -cum -Law Advisor to the Government of Jharkhand whereby his appointment as Public Prosecutor, Chatra has been cancelled. The said order has also been challenged by filing amendment petition. Petitioner 'scase is that he was appointed as Public Prosecutor in the District of Chatra by the Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 28th September, 2002 and since then he was discharging his duties as Public Prosecutor. It is stated by the petitioner that he was shocked and surprised to receive a show cause notice issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) directing him to show cause as to why recommendation should not me made to the State Government for removing him from the post of Public Prosecutor. Petitioner was also served with a letter dated 25.11.2003 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra intimating him not to act as a Public Prosecutor till further order and also to hand over the files to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Chatra. It is stated by the petitioner that in pursuance of show cause notice the show cause submitted by him to the Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chatra was forwarded it to this Court. Finally, the impugned order cancelling his appointment as Public Prosecutor was issued by the Government.
(3.) MR . Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned show cause notice as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel, firstly, submitted that the High Court has no authority or jurisdiction to recommend the removal of the Public Prosecutor working in the district. It is contended that it is the State Government only who can remove a Public Prosecutor in consultation with the District Judge and District Magistrate ' of the concerned district. Learned counsel drawn my attention to Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Clause 143 of the Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual and submitted that the Collector of the district never issued any show cause notice be - fore passing the order of removal by the Law Department of the Government of Jharkhand. Learned counsel put reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Raj vs. Punj. & Har. H.C., AIR 1976 SC 2490; State of U.P. vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, (1989)2 SCC 505, and Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P., (1991)1 SCC 214.;