JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure-11) passed by Principal Secretary (Law), whereby, the services of the petitioner as Special Public Prosecutor have been terminated. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor under the provisions of Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. by order dated 28.08.2009 and the petitioner continued on the said post. 3. In S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No. 4621/2015 : Jitendra v. State) decided on 29.06.2015 , a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the bail application, directed as under:- " xokg Jherh jhrw ,oa Jherh lhek ds/kkjk 161 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds c;kuksa esa mijksDrkuqlkj rF;kRed fLFkfr vuqla/kku ds nkSjku i=koyh ij gksus ds ckotwn Hkh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa rRdkyhu fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd@yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk mDr xokgku dks rdZ fd;k x;k gS] ftldk dksbZ vk/kkj izFke n`"Vrk i=koyh ij izdV ugha gksrk gSA mDr egRoiw.kZ xokgku ;fn yksd vfHk;kstd dh fuxkg esa vfHk;kstu i{k dk leFkZu ugha djrs gS rks mUgsa ijhf{kr djokdj i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr gksus ij muls ftjg dh tk ldrh gS rFkk U;k;ky; dks fu.kZ; ij igqapus ds fy, leqfpr enn iznku dh tk ldrh gS ysfdu v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk mDr xokgku dks rdZ djus dh rF;kRed fLFkfr dks/;ku esa j[krs gq, ;g U;k;ksfpr le>k tkrk gS fd vkns'k dh izfr izeq[k lfpo ( fof/k ) dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izsf"kr dh tkos fd bl vkns'k dh jks'kuh esa lEcfU/kr dks fu;ekuqlkj lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsdj bl dze esa mfpr dk;Zokgh dj bl U;k;ky; dks ,d ekg esa lwfpr fd;k tkosA " 4. Based on the directions, the Principal Secretary (Law) on 10.09.2015 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner vide Annexure-10 filed her reply, where after, by order dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure-11), the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been working as Special Public Prosecutor with zeal and dedication and her success had been 90%; it was submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court while deciding the third bail application on 29.06.2015, when the petitioner was issued show cause notice, the petitioner gave a reply, which facts are reiterated by learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions, which read as under:- "5. That on the complaint of complainant Ram Sundar Rathore an FIR bearing No. 86/2014 for the offence under section 498-A, 304-B IPC was registered at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sri Ganganagar against the accused Jitendra Rathore. The police after usual investigation filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC. The accused Jitendra Rathore filed a bail application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 354/2015 before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court dismissed the bail application vide order dated 16.01.2015 as note press. 6. That during the course of trial the complainant Ram Sunder Rathore submitted an application before the petitioner on 02.05.2015 mentioning therein that Deepak Rathore the brother of the accused Jitendra Rathore is threatening to the witnesses Smt. Ritu W/o Sushil Kumar and Smt. Seema W/o Ankush Kumar that on giving evidence by them he will dragged their husband in false case of rape. As such the both the witnesses are neighbour of the accused Jitendra Kumar, therefore, the names of Smt. Ritu and Smt. Seema may be removed from the list of witnesses. 7. That the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 02.05.2015 left the witnesses Witness No. 8 Ritu and Witness No. 9 Seema and closed the prosecution evidence and posted the case for the statement of accused. 8. That the accused Jitendra Rathore again preferred a bail application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 3896/2015 before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court dismissed the second bail application on 21.05.2015 as not press with the liberty to file the fresh bail application after recording of statement of witnesses Ritu and Seema. 9. That the accused Jitendra Rathore preferred third bail application before this Hon'ble Court bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No. 4621/2015. This Hon'ble Court granted the bail to the accused Jitendra Rathore vide order dated 29.06.2015 with the observation that despite the factual position available on record during the investigation in the statement of witness Smt. Ritu and Smt. Seema recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the then Special Public Prosecutor has left these witnesses, whose no basis seems from the record. This Hon'ble Court granted the bail to the accused Jitendra Rathore vide order dated 29.06.2015 with the observation that despite the factual position available on record during the investigation in the statement of witness Smt. Ritu and Smt. Seema recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the then Special Public Prosecutor has left these witnesses, whose no basis seems from the record. In case the said important witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case in view of public prosecutor then they by examining on declaring hostile could cross examined and appropriate help could be provided to reach at decision to the court but looking to the factual position of leaving the witnesses by the public prosecution this order may be forwarded to the Principal Secretary (Law) with the direction that in the light of this order the concerned by providing proper opportunity of hearing appropriate action may be informed to the court within one month." 7. Based on the above, it was submitted that the order impugned passed by the Principal Secretary (Law) dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure- 11) cannot be sustained; further submissions were made that the order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing and without recording any reasons and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 9. A bare perusal of the extract of order dated 29.06.2015 (supra) it is apparent that this Court on reaching to the conclusion that there was no prima facie material available on record for leaving the witnesses and the Court after indicating the steps which ought to have been taken by the Special Public Prosecutor, has directed action to be taken. 10. The sum and substance of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the plea, which was raised by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice, is that the order dated 29.06.2015 was passed based on insufficient material and certain important events were not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 29.06.2015. 11. The submissions made essentially touch upon the validity/propriety of the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which aspect possibly neither could have been examined by the respondent No. 2 - Principal Secretary (Law) nor can be examined by this Court. 11. The submissions made essentially touch upon the validity/propriety of the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which aspect possibly neither could have been examined by the respondent No. 2 - Principal Secretary (Law) nor can be examined by this Court. The proper, rather only course open for the petitioner was/is to approach the same Court, which passed the order dated 29.06.2015 and/or a higher forum on the grounds, which are sought to be raised in the present writ petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioner, on the said count cannot be entertained and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 12. In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******