The dismissal order must provide clear and explicit reasoning, consider previous court directions, and obtain necessary approvals to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fairness in the decision-making process.

Mridula Mishra, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been filed for quashing Resolution, dated 16.07.1996, contained in Memo No. 7835, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Further, prayer is for commanding respondents 1 to 4 to give five increments with consequential financial benefits due on 05.01.1992 to 05.01.1996 and to pay full salary, along with increments, for the period 09.01.1992 to 16.09.1995 after deducting the subsistence allowance paid during suspension.

3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant District Prosecutor on 16.03.1973. New Criminal Procedure Code came into force on 01.04.1974 whereby nomenclature of Assistant District Prosecutor was changed to Assistant Public Prosecutor and the control of the Police Department on the services of Assistant Public Prosecutor was removed. In spite of the amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code the State Government was not notifying the necessary amendment regarding removal of control of Police Department on the services of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Bihar Police Prosecution Association was agitating against this delay in implementation of the provision under new Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioner in the capacity of General Secretary of Bihar Police Prosecution Association was leading the agitation for removal of the control of Police Department on the cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutor. The agitation was being made before the authorities as well as in the Court of law. C.W.J.C. No. 8948 of 1989 was filed with an aim to secure better service conditions in keeping with mandate of the amended provision of Sec. 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent authorities took this agitation being led by the petitioner very seriously. Another writ application was also filed being C.W.J.C. No. 4422 of 1989 in which it was highlighted that for 29 years no promotion has been given to the members of the Assistant Public Prosecutor cadre on the account of repeated interference of the authorities of the Police Department. By order, dated 22.06.1990, this writ application was allowed. As per the direction of the Court, the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted which considered the name of petitioner, along with others, for promotion and after completing all formalities the petitioner and others were promoted in April, 1991. The petitioner was made Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor at Khunti by order, dated 30.12.1991. While posted at Khunti, the petitioner was put under suspension by order, dated 09.01.1992, for the charges which was said to be for the period prior to his promotion. The memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner on 27.01.1992. The petitioner filed an application on 03.03.1992 for supply of relevant documents. The enquiry officer by order, dated 26.11.1992, wrote to the Director, Prosecution, for supply of relevant documents. Petitioners case is that documents were not supplied, but the Department by order, dated 24.07.1993, directed the petitioner to file his written statement. Again, petitioner made a request by filing a petition on 27.12.1993 for supply of relevant documents. Thereafter, petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 1525 of 1994 for quashing the suspension order as well as the departmental proceeding. The stand of the petitioner was that the departmental proceeding could not have been initiated and the order of suspension could not have been passed on the basis of stale charges. Once the petitioner was found fit for promotion after necessary screening by the Departmental Promotion Committee, clearance of the Vigilance Cell as also after the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission, the alienations, if any, against him must be deemed to have been wiped out and, therefore, not only the order of suspension but also the decision to start the departmental proceeding is arbitrary and colorable exercise of power. Prior to the filing of wri