Case Background
The petitioner is a member of the Bihar Prosecution Service. He was first appointed as an Assistant Prosecution Officer through Notification No. 1011 dated 25.09.2017 issued by the Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Later, he was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Prosecution Officer by Notification No. 2513 dated 31.10.2023, also issued by the Directorate of Prosecution. At the time of the dispute, he was posted in the District Prosecution Office, Rohtas, Sasaram.
On 16.01.2025, the Government of Bihar, Home Department, Directorate of Prosecution, issued Notification No. 145. Under this notification, 13 Prosecution Officers, including the petitioner, were transferred. The petitioner was transferred from his post as Sub-Divisional Prosecution Officer at Rohtas, Sasaram, to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, as a Law Officer.
The petitioner was shown at Serial No. 2 of the transfer notification. He did not wish to join the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. On 17.01.2025, he submitted a representation, through Letter No. 20, before the Director of Prosecution. He requested that his name be removed from Serial No. 2 of the transfer notification and that he be posted in any District Prosecution Office instead.
He also made a similar representation before respondent no. 2, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, as mentioned in Annexure P/2. According to him, no favourable order was passed on these representations.
Later, by Order No. 8/2025 contained in Memo No. 144 dated 04.04.2025, the District Prosecution Officer Incharge, Rohtas (Sasaram), relieved the petitioner from his post to enable him to join at the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. This relieving order was issued in compliance with the earlier transfer notification.
Challenging both the transfer notification (to the extent it concerned him) and the relieving order, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1855 of 2025. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash Notification No. 145 dated 16.01.2025 at Serial No. 2, and also to quash Memo No. 144 dated 04.04.2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman. The Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State of Bihar.
The petitioner’s main grievance was that his transfer to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau placed him under the administrative and disciplinary control of the police or police-related authorities. According to him, this went against earlier directions of the Patna High Court and the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He relied on an order dated 14.11.1995 passed in CWJC No. 5573 of 1995. In that case, the Patna High Court had directed the State authorities to create a separate prosecution cadre, independent of the police department, under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The idea was to ensure that no Assistant Public Prosecutor remained subordinate to police officers.
The State had challenged that earlier order in LPA No. 294 of 1996. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on 04.11.1996. A Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The petitioner argued that these directions and findings clearly established that prosecution officers must function independently from police control.
The petitioner further submitted that, following these decisions, the Prosecution Manual, 2003 was framed and placed before the Patna High Court in MJC No. 2110 of 1997. He emphasised that, under this arrangement, the Directorate of Prosecution and Prosecution Officers were freed from the administrative and disciplinary control of the police department. He also submitted that, after the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, it was intended that the prosecution service would function independently of the police.
The petitioner tried to strengthen his argument by referring to another case. In CWJC No. 4287 of 1992, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, by order dated 21.05.1992, had stayed a transfer posting a Prosecution Officer at the Police Training College, Hazaribagh, under the administrative control of the Principal-cum-D.I.G. of Police. The Court had directed that an appropriate posting be given instead. These orders were produced as Annexures P/5 and P/6.
On these bases, the petitioner argued that the authorities were ignoring settled law and binding precedents. He submitted that Prosecution Officers could not be placed under the administrative and disciplinary control of the police department or its officers. He also complained that he was not given an opportunity to exercise any option for his posting.
The State’s counsel presented a different picture. They pointed out that the petitioner is an officer of the Bihar Prosecution Service and was holding the post of Sub-Divisional Prosecution Officer. They said that, in the interest of prosecution administration, the Directorate of Prosecution issued Notification No. 145 dated 16.01.2025 transferring 13 Prosecution Officers, including the petitioner. All others, except the petitioner, had already joined at their new postings.
The State clarified that the petitioner had been transferred to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna, as a Law Officer against a sanctioned post. Several Prosecution Officers were already working in the Vigilance Investigation Bureau and drawing their salaries there. Thus, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau was not a police posting in the sense alleged by the petitioner; rather, it was a place where Prosecution Officers were performing legal work under proper sanction.
The State also mentioned Resolution Memo No. 4521 dated 03.04.1989 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar. Under this resolution, a gazetted officer must join the transferred place of posting within seven days of receiving the transfer order. If the officer fails to do so, departmental proceedings, including suspension, may be initiated. The resolution also commands the controlling officer to relieve the transferred officer within the stipulated time. On this basis, the State justified the relieving order issued on 04.04.2025.
Further, the State relied specifically on Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003. According to them, this Rule permits posting or deputation of Prosecution Officers to other departments to perform legal work. As a government servant, the petitioner was bound by these rules and regulations. Therefore, the transfer to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau was lawful.
In reply, the petitioner’s counsel argued that Rule 27 of the Prosecution Manual did not permit posting of Prosecution Officers under the administrative and disciplinary control of the police. He also contended that the action taken was contrary to Rule 31 of the Prosecution Manual, 2003.
The Court then carefully examined the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003. It noted that the Manual was published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 177 dated 21st April, 2003. The Court referred to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the appropriate legislature to regulate recruitment and service conditions of public servants. It observed that the petitioner, as an officer of the Bihar Prosecution Service, was governed by this Manual.
The judgment reproduces the relevant parts of Rules 27 and 31 of the Manual. In substance, Rule 27 states that 5 percent of the total sanctioned strength shall be kept as a reserve. From this reserve, officers may be appointed or deputed to other departments to perform legal work, against duly sanctioned non-gazetted posts. Rule 31 provides that, in matters where the Manual has no specific provision, the general rules applicable to other government servants of the State will also apply to members of the Prosecution Service.
From these provisions, the Court drew an important conclusion. It held that every Prosecution Officer has to work under the Home Department. However, Rule 27 clearly allows that 5 percent of the total sanctioned posts may be treated as reserve posts. Officers from this reserve can be appointed or sent on deputation to other departments for legal work.
The Court held that, in the light of Rule 27, the petitioner’s argument that he must always be posted only as a District Prosecution Officer could not be accepted. The very rules that govern his service, namely the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, provide specific powers for appointment and deputation in other departments whenever the Government or parent department requires it.
On the earlier judgments cited by the petitioner, the Court made a clear distinction. It noted that those decisions dated 1992 and 1996 were delivered before the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 came into force. At that time, the detailed service rules contained in the Manual did not exist. Therefore, the Court held that those earlier judgments could not be applied in the current situation governed by the 2003 Manual.
The Court stated that the services of the petitioner must be guided by the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 and by no other law, unless any provision of the Manual is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a competent court. It observed that working in any office on deputation does not automatically mean that the officer comes under the complete administrative and disciplinary control of that department. The petitioner remains an employee of the Bihar Prosecution Service, and Rule 31 of the Manual continues to bind him.
On these reasons, the Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to make out any legal ground to challenge the transfer order or the relieving order. It found no illegality in the decision of the authorities to send him to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau as a Law Officer under Rule 27.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court held that the writ petition had no merit and dismissed it.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is significant for officers of the Bihar Prosecution Service and other government servants in Bihar. It shows that, once a detailed service manual like the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 is in place, transfers and deputations will be examined mainly under that manual.
The judgment confirms that the Government can use Rule 27 of the Prosecution Manual to post a limited number of Prosecution Officers to other departments for legal work. An officer cannot insist that he must remain in a particular office, such as a district prosecution office, if the rules allow deputation elsewhere.
The Court also made it clear that older judgments delivered before the Prosecution Manual came into force cannot be relied upon to override clear provisions of the Manual. Unless the Manual itself or any of its provisions is struck down by a competent court, Prosecution Officers are bound by it.
For public servants generally, the decision underscores that working on deputation to another office does not automatically take them out of their parent cadre. Their fundamental service conditions remain tied to their original service rules.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a Bihar Prosecution Service officer legally be transferred and deputed to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau as a Law Officer under the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003?
Answer: Yes. The Court held that Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 permits deputation of up to 5 percent of total sanctioned prosecution posts to other departments for legal work, and the petitioner’s transfer was valid under this rule. -
Issue: Do earlier Patna High Court judgments, delivered before 2003, prevent such deputation of Prosecution Officers to bodies like the Vigilance Investigation Bureau?
Answer: No. The Court held that those earlier judgments were passed before the Prosecution Manual, 2003 came into force and therefore do not govern a situation now clearly covered by the Manual. -
Issue: Does working on deputation in another department mean that a Prosecution Officer comes under the full administrative and disciplinary control of that department, contrary to the independent status of the prosecution service?
Answer: No. The Court held that on deputation the officer remains an employee of the Bihar Prosecution Service, governed by the Prosecution Manual, 2003, and cannot be treated as fully absorbed under the other department’s control.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Order dated 14.11.1995 in CWJC No. 5573 of 1995, Patna High Court (regarding creation of separate prosecution cadre).
- Order dated 04.11.1996 in LPA No. 294 of 1996, Patna High Court (dismissing appeal against CWJC No. 5573 of 1995).
- Order dated 21.05.1992 in CWJC No. 4287 of 1992, Patna High Court (staying transfer of a Prosecution Officer to Police Training College, Hazaribagh).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1855 of 2025
Case Title: Punit Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026(3) PLJR 628
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Jnanchandra Bhardwaj, Advocate
- For the respondents (State of Bihar): Mr. Kumar Manish, SC-5; Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to SC-5
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging transfer and relieving orders relating to a Bihar Prosecution Service officer.
Date of Judgment: 14.05.2026
CAV Date: 18.04.2026
Uploading Date: 15.05.2026
Link to the Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment on the Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
