STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW GOVT OF BIHAR Vs. GAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE VIMAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:-

(3.) In this case the petitioner was appointed on the post of Public Prosecutor for a period of three years vide Memo No. 4847 dated 31.07.2015 issued under signature of the Law Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. The petitioner has placed on record Memo No. 4847 dated 31.07.2015 and the consequential letter no. 1537 dated 24.08.2015 as Annexures 2 & 3 respectively to the Writ Application. It is his case that vide letter no. 2814 dated 16.11.2016 the District Magistrate, Nalanda informed the Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar that the petitioner is not performing his duties properly and because he was not opposing the bail applications of the accused in many cases, the concerned courts have granted bail orders to the accused. The District Magistrate cited by way of example that in Village Bakhra Riot Case the accused were granted bail within two days because the Public Prosecutor did not oppose the application. Similarly he cited Chandi P.S. Case no. 174/2016 in which the main accused were granted bail allegedly because the Public Prosecutor did not oppose the Bail Application. It is further stated that in the District Level Monitoring Committee, in course of meeting, the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Nalanda informed that in Laheri P.S. Case No. 329/2013 arising out of acid attack on a woman the Public Prosecutor was not conducting the case properly. The District Magistrate, therefore, recommended for removal of the Public Prosecutor.