ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date: 12-07-2018

In these two analogous Letters Patent Appeals, the State of Bihar has moved before us for setting aside the common judgment dated 26.02.2018 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13876 of 2017 and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10661 of 2017 by which the learned Writ Court has been pleased to set aside the impugned Memos issued under signature of the Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of Bihar addressed to the District Magistrate, Patna and the District Magistrate, Nalanda respectively informing them that the two writ petitioners who were working as Public Prosecutors at Patna and Nalanda respectively have been removed from their posts and in place thereof the Additional Public Prosecutors were authorized to discharge the duties of the Public Prosecutor as an interim measure.

2. We will briefly refer the facts of the two Writ Applications separately as under:-

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13876 of 2017

2.1 The petitioner of this case is a lawyer practicing in Patna Civil Court, he is said to have joined the Bar in the year 1977 and was earlier appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor in the year 1992. According to the petitioner he discharged his duties as Additional Public Prosecutor to the best of his ability and capability.

2.2 The name of the petitioner was included in the panel of advocates recommended by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Patna for appointment to the post of Public Prosecutor, by virtue of the said recommendation and after following the procedure laid down on this behalf the petitioner was appointed as Public Prosecutor for Patna district by letter dated 31.07.2015 for a period of three years. A copy of the appointment letter dated 31.07.2015 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the Writ Application.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that while he had been discharging his duties as Public Prosecutor and had successfully completed the probation period, all of a sudden he was served with a letter dated 08.09.2017 issued under signature of the District Magistrate, Patna (Annexure-2 to the Writ Application). The District Magistrate, Patna informed the petitioner vide Annexure-2 to the Writ Application that in the matters relating to the cases registered against illegal mining of sand in Bihta Police Station he had received a letter of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna by which it has been informed that the petitioner and other connected Additional Public Prosecutors are not putting the stand of the government properly before the learned courts as a result of which the learned courts have passed orders not to take coercive steps against the accused persons. It is further stated in Annexure-2 that the Senior Superintendent of Police has further reported that because of this kind of order being passed by the learned courts difficulty is being faced in arrest of the accused and in the matter of conducting raid and further action against them. Annexure-2 further states that a direction has been received in this context from the Joint Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar vide letter no. 5201 dated 06.09.2017 whereunder the District Magistrate has been advised to seek explanation from the Public Prosecutor, Patna and to submit his opinion on the same to the department. The petitioner was granted 24 hours from the receipt of the letter to submit his explanation to the District Magistrate, Patna.

2.4 The petitioner submitted his reply vide Memo No. 2708 dated 12.09.2017 to the District Magistrate, Patna. He contended that the government is appointing law officers in Civil Courts, High Courts and in the Supreme Court as also in different other places and in course of hearing of the case the law officer concerned would place his stand but the decision of the case may come either way, it may go against the government, he further explained that it cannot be said on the face of the decision of the court that t