Prosecution Officers may be deputed to other departments for legal work under Bihar Prosecution Manual Rules.

The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Prosecution Officer (SDPO) in Rohtas, Bihar, challenged a notification dated 16.01.2025 and a subsequent relieving order dated 04.04.2025, which transferred him to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, as a Law Officer.

The petitioner argued that as a prosecution officer, he should remain independent of the police department’s administrative control, citing a 1995 High Court directive to isolate the prosecution cadre.

The State maintained that the transfer was made in the interest of administration and was authorized by the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003.

1. Whether the transfer of a Prosecution Officer to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau as a Law Officer violates the independence of the prosecution cadre granted under Section 25 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, empowers the State to post or depute prosecution officers to other departments.

Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, which stipulates that 5% of the total sanctioned strength of the prosecution cadre is reserved for "leave, training, and deputation," and allows the government to depute officers to other departments for legal work.

Rule 31 regarding the applicability of general service rules in the absence of specific provisions.

Article 309 of the Constitution under which the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 was enacted.

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s service conditions are strictly governed by the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003.

It rejected the petitioner’s reliance on 1990s-era judgments regarding police interference, observing that those rulings existed before the current statutory manual was framed.

The court found that Rule 27 explicitly provides for "deputation" to other departments for legal work, negating the petitioner’s claim that he must exclusively be posted in a District Prosecution Office.

The court clarified that working in another department on deputation does not sever the officer’s link to their parent cadre; the petitioner remains a member of the Bihar Prosecution Service, and such posting does not equate to a transfer of ultimate administrative or disciplinary control to the police.

It concluded that under Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, the State has the authority to depute prosecution officers for legal duties in other departments.

The court affirmed that the Manual remains the governing law for the petitioner’s service unless declared ultra vires by a competent jurisdiction.