Law officer of government cannot appear in Courts against the State: Patna High Court

The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

-Article 39A, The Constitution of India 

The office of the Advocate General, Bihar issued an office order dated March 16, 2026, wherein, it referred to a "significant" order dated February 18, 2026 by the Patna High Court in Pappu Kumar Manjhi  vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1142 of 2024 with Arvind Kumar Manjhi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr 1195 of 2024, citing the provision contained in Rule 7(1) of the Law officers Engagement Rules, 2023. The office order pointed out that "the said rule does not permit law officer to appear against the State." 

The office order reads: "In the light of the judicial order, all Addl. Public Prosecutors being a Law officer as per the Rule 3(1)(f) of the said engagement rule, 2023, are hereby directed to ensure strict observance of the above order accordingly. 2. Under Secretary/Section officer of the Criminal Section is hereby directed to bring into the notice of the undersigned if any non-observance in this regard comes to the knowledge forthwith. 3. This order shall come into effect immediately."

The copy of the order was sent to the Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna, Secretary-cum-LR, Law Department, Government of Bihar, Under Secretary/Section officer, Office of the AG and all Additional Public Prosecutors, Patna High Court; for information and necessary action. The office order was issued by Navin Chandra, Joint Secretary, Secretary to Government of Bihar. 

In its order dated February 18, 202, the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Praveen Kumar recorded: " As soon as the matter was called out, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate appears to argue the matter. On finding that Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 is assisting Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate on behalf of the appellant even as he happens to be an Additional Public Prosecutor presently in the panel of the State, this Court raised a query as to whether he can appear on behalf of the private party against the State. 2. Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 was, in fact, asked this question earlier also by one of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court who was constituting the Bench in which the Criminal Appeal (DB) was being heard. He was put to caution, but despite lapse of substantial period, he has continued to do so."

It added: "3. This Court, therefore, sent a request to the learned Advocate General to appear and assist this Court in the matter as to whether Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 is permitted by the State to appear on behalf of the private party. The learned Advocate General has appeared and apprised this Court. It is informed that Rule 7(i) of the Law Officers Engagement Rules, 2023 published in the Gazette on the 4th of July, 2023 does not permit a law officer to appear against the State. A clear stand has been taken referring to the said rule that Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 cannot appear on behalf of the private party against the State." 

The order noted: "4. Having sensed the trouble, Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 offers an undertaking that he would henceforth either not accept any private brief in his chambers or he would immediately resign today itself as Additional Public Prosecutor. This Court is of the considered opinion that Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 being an experienced lawyer having spent about two decades at the Bar has been violating the rules which is bordering on the face of a breach of the professional ethics. 5. This Court invited the suggestions from the learned Advocate General and at the Bar and it has been the request of the learned Advocate General and the Bar that Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 may be allowed to resign today itself if he wants to continue with this private practice against the State and he may be left with an admonition only at this stage. 6. This Court accepts the suggestions at the Bar and is not directing initiation of any disciplinary action against Mr. Manish Kumar, No.2, however, the admonition will be there on the record. He may choose for himself the next course of action. 7. Let this matter be taken up tomorrow i.e. on 19.02.2026 for consideration on merit. 8. A copy of the order shall be made available to the learned Advocate General for his records." The order was authored by Justice Prasad. 

On the next date, the order dated February 20, 2026 was passed by Justice Prasad. The order did not mention Manish Kumar's name as the assisting counsel. It is clear that the matter ended with Court's admonition.    

Notably, Justice M.L. Jain of Delhi High Court too had an occasion to grapple with a similar situation in 1981. In Lt. Col. K.C. Sud, New Delhi vs. S.C. Gudimani. The Court had framed three questions: (1)Whether a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor or a panel lawyer for that matter, can appear against the State? (2)Whether it is permissible to the State or the Administration to permit a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor to appear against the State ? (3)Whether a Public Prosecutor can appear on behalf of the accused person in cases instituted on a complaint by a private party? 

Delhi High Court's answer to the three questions are as follows: "(1)The Public Prosecutor, the Additional Public Prosecutors cannot appear against the State in criminal matters. That is so even where the party has carefully avoided to implead the State as a party in a revision or an appeal, or any other criminal proceedings. This applies to panel lawyers as well, because no panel lawyer can appear without being appointed as an Addl. Public Prosecutor. (2)It is not permissible for the State or the Delhi Administration to allow the Public Prosecutor or the Addl. Public Prosecutor to appear against itself and it must provide so specifically in the terms of their appointment. (3) The Public Prosecutor cannot appear on behalf of the accused even in cases instituted on a complaint by a private party." Bihar too should adopt these answers in pursuit of comprehensive justice.  

Justice Sudhir Singh appointed Chairman, Advisory Board under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act

As per notification dated published June 9, 2026 in Bihar Gazette by order of the Governor of Bihar, the "Advisory Board" under Section  9 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 has been reconstituted. 

The Governor of Bihar has appointed Justice Sudhir Singh, the second senior most judge of the Patna High Court as Chairman of the Advisory Board and Justice Birendra Kumar (retd.) and Justice Nawneet Kumar Panday (retd.) as Members on the basis of nomination of Chief Justice, Patna High Court, Patna with immediate effect. This recommendation pre-dates the arrival of the current Chief Justice Meenkashi Madan Rai. It is apparent that these names were recommended by Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo during his tenure as Chief Justice. 

The notification was issued under the signature of Deepak Anand, Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Bihar Government.

Rajiv Kumar, Assistant Commissioner dismissed, found guilty of revenue embezzlement, financial irregularities and for hiding earlier posting as Junior Accounts Assistant

Finance Department has issued a resolution dated June 19, 2026 under the signature of Anil Kumar, Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar under the order of Governor Bihar which has been published in the Bihar Gazette on June 23, 2026 regarding the punishment order of Rajiv Kumar, Assistant Commissioner. It reads: "Shri Rajiv Kumar (Bihar Financial Administration Service), Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna was earlier employed as Junior Accounts Assistant, Electricity Supply, Lower Division, Gogri, Khagaria in North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited. Maheshkhunt police station case number – 298/2022 dated – 09.12.2022 is registered regarding the revenue embezzlement and financial irregularities committed by him during the said employment. The facts of the said financial irregularity, revenue embezzlement and police station incident were registered by North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna, through letter no. 337, dated 18.072023, reported to the Finance Department. Prima facie, the allegations reported against Shri Kumar were found to be true." 

The resolution states that on the basis of available evidence, chargesheet was framed against the accused officer in the light of the relevant provisions of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - 2005 (as amended from time to time), in which four serious charges were made as follows:-

Charge No. 1:- It has been informed vide memorandum no. 337, dated 18.07.2023 of North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna that you are already employed on the post of Junior Accounts Assistant, Electricity Supply Lower Division, Gogri, Khagaria and have been accused of revenue embezzlement and financial irregularities in the period from June, 2017 to December, 2020. An FIR has been registered against you (Maheshkhunt police station case number – 298/2022 dated – 09.12.2022).

Charge  No. 2:-Your resignation letter was rejected by your former employer due to not obtaining permission to apply for recruitment in other service, not obtaining no objection certificate before contributing to other service, contributing to other service without getting the resignation letter accepted, not making proper transfer of charge and not clarifying the status of dues to the company/not being due. 

Charge No. 3: No information/fact has been mentioned in paragraph 11 (a) of the verification form dedicated by you in the order of document/certificate verification dated 22.012019 in the Finance Department for appointment to the post of Accounts Officer (details related to whether you are serving or have been in the Central or State Government or semi-government body or autonomous body or public undertaking or any firm or institution). Whereas as per the referred letter of North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna, you were posted in the said body. It is clear that at the time of appointment under the Finance Department, the fact regarding your posting on the post of Junior Accounts Assistant under North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna was hidden in the verification form submitted by you.

Charge No. 4: At the time of appointment to the post of Accounts Officer in Bihar Financial Administration Service, you were also holding the post of Junior Accounts Assistant under North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna. At present you are holding two posts at the same time, which is against the relevant rules of Bihar Service Code. 

By providing a copy of the above constituted charge sheet vide departmental letter no. 10255 dated 17.11.2023, a written clarification was demanded from the accused officer within 7 (seven) days, in response to which the written allegation was submitted on 27.11.2023. The said statement was found unsatisfactory and rejected by the department. 

Under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - 2005 Rule 17 (2) to investigate the allegations against the accused officer in the prescribed manner, by Departmental Office Order No. 2867, dated 15.03.2024, Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna was nominated as the Operating Officer and Assistant Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Patna was nominated as the Presentation Officer. 

In the investigation report submitted by the Operating Officer, allegations no. 1 and 3 made against the accused officer were reported as proved, charge no. 2 was partially proved and charge no. 4 was reported as unproven. 

Based on the findings of the investigation report, in the light of Rule 18 (3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - 2005, while providing a copy of the investigation report, through departmental letter no. 8913 dated 16.08.2024, Shri Kumar was directed to submit his representation / request within 15 days, in the light of which Shri Kumar did so on 05.09.2024. Submitted his written representation.

A detailed review of the investigation report and the representation of the accused officer was done by the disciplinary authority. On the basis of evidence and legal provisions, charge numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 (all four charges) were found proved by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, through departmental letter no. 10688, dated 09.10.2025, a written representation was again demanded from Shri Kumar from the accused officer in the light of Rule 18 (3) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - 2005, which he submitted on 31.10.2025. After reviewing the written representation received from the accused officer, the disciplinary authority found it not logical and rejected it. 

The resignation letter submitted by the accused officer was rejected by his previous employer, hence he will be legally considered to be working in his previous post. It was found illegal for him to be employed in two different institutions at the same time and hold posts at both the places.

Prescribed advice was sought from Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through departmental letter no. 12592 dated 11.12.2025 and reminder letter no. 566 dated 09.03.2026. The Commission expressed its consent to the proposed punishment (dismissal) through letter no. 4909, dated 09.03.2026 and letter no. 202, dated 17.04.2026.

Therefore, as per the decision of the disciplinary authority in the light of the consent received from Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, the punishment of "dismissal, which will not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government" under Rule - 14 (X) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, is communicated to Shri Rajeev Kumar (Bihar Financial Administration Service), Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund Directorate, Bihar, Patna. The punishment of dismissal from service will be effective from the date of issue of the resolution.

 

Office of Advocate General demoted, deleted from list of Heads of Departments through 14th amendment in Bihar Service Code, after 23rd Advocate General takes charge

By the order of the Governor of Bihar, Rachna Patil, Secretary (Expenditure). Department of Finance has issued a notification dated June 19, 2026, demoting the Office of Advocate General by deleting it from the list of Heads of Departments under Bihar Service Code. The notification reads: "No. 3A-5-S.C.-05/2013-5777/F. —In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article- 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Bihar is hereby pleased to make the following Amendment in The Bihar Service Code, 1952 with immediate effect:—Amendment "The Office of The Advocate General, Bihar" shall be deleted at S.No.-34 from the list of Heads of Department of the Appendix-3 of the Bihar Service Code."  

Notably, this amendment was published in the aftermath of the appointment of Satydarshi Sanjay as the 23rd Advocate General of Bihar from the date on which he took charge. The notification dated June 18, 2026 with regard to his appointment was issued under the signature of Balram Dubey by the order of the Governor of Bihar. S.D. Sanjay, a law graduate from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University was serving as the Additional Solicitor General of India before taking charge as the 23rd AG on June 18, 2026. He has served as Additional Advocate General of Bihar during 2010-2014.  

The notification from Balram Dubey, Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar reads:"भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 165 (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्यिों का प्रयोग करते हुए बिहार के राज्यपाल, श्री एस०डी० संजय (श्री सत्यदर्शी संजय), वरीय अधिवक्ता, उच्च न्यायालय, पटना को उनके पदभार ग्रहण की तिथि से महाधिवक्ता, बिहार के पद पर नियुक्त करते है।" A copy of the communication was sent to 22nd AG at Shahi Bhawan, Shahi Lane, S.P.Verma Road, Patna-800001. 

This amendment has been enacted after the resignation of Prashant Kumar Shahi, the 22nd Advocate General (AG) of Bihar on June 15, 2026. Balram Dubey, Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar communicated to the 22nd AG that his resignation has been accepted under instructions from the afternoon of June 15, 2026 vide letter no. 4742. 

No one was Advocate General of Bihar for three days because after the resignation of 22nd AG, no one was appointed for three days.         

Notably, the details regarding the acceptance of the resignation of the 22nd AG and appointment of teh 23rd AG has been published on the official website of the office of the Advocate General, Bihar, High Court, Patna. The website was developed by the l.T. Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. It was launched on September 22, 2025 at 4:30 pm. The resignation letter has not been published on the website.

Earlier, by the order of Governor of Bihar, The Bihar Service Code, 1952 was amended in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 to elevate the status of Office of The Advocate General, Bihar.  The 13th amendment to Bihar Service Code reads: "The Office of The Advocate General, Bihar" shall be added after S.No.-33 at S.No.-34 in the list of Heads of Department of the Appendix-3 of the Bihar Service Code." It was notified in the Bihar Gazette No. 856 on August 28, 2024. It implied that the Advocate General (AG) was deemed as the Head of Department of Government of Bihar. The upgradation of the AG Office into a separate department is a significant institutional change. AG was designated as head of the newly created department. It implied that AG was been granted the status of Cabinet rank minister. 

With the 14th amendment in the Bihar Service Code, AG will no more be deemed the head of a department.  During the tenure of the 22nd AG, questions were raised in the Bihar State Assembly about the role AG as the 46th Department of Bihar Government but the office of the Speaker, Bihar State Assembly had not allowed those questions.     

Notably, Mahabir Prasad was the longest serving AG He was AG for 19 years. Ram Balak Mahto served as AG for 14 years. P.K Shahi served for some 8 years. 

 The list of former Advocate Generals are as under:

1  Baldeo Sahay 1937 to 1942

2  Jaffar Imam 1942 to 1943

3  Mahabir Prasad 1943 to 1947

4  Laxmi Kant Jha 1948 to 1950

5  Mahabir Prasad 1950 to 1965

6  Lal Narayan Sinha 28-06-1965 to 31-01-1972

7  Balbhadra Prasad Singh 01-02-1972 to 27-09-1976

8  Tara Kant Jha 28-09-1976 to 19-09-1977

9  Krishna Das Chatterjee 20-09-1977 to 16-10-1979

10  Radha Raman 19-10-1979 to 04-04-1980

11  Ram Balak Mahto 05-04-1980 to 09-07-1980

12  Kanhaiya Prasad Verma 10-07-1980 to 04-04-1985

13  Ram Balak Mahto 05-04-1985 to 11-12-1989

14  Kanhaiya Prasad Verma 19-12-1989 to 11-04-1990

15  Ram Balak Mahto 12-04-1990 to 01-12-1993

16  Rameshwar Prasad 02-12-1993 to 31-12-1997

17  Shashi Anugrah Narain 01-01-1998 to 24-11-2005

18  Prashant Kumar Shahi 25-11-2005 to 25-11-2010

19  Ram Balak Mahto 29-11-2010 to 19-02-2015

20  Ram Balak Mahto 27-02-2015 to 28-07-2017

21  Lalit Kishore        31-07-2017 to 10-01-2023

22. Prashant Kumar Shahi    16-01-2023 to 15-06-2026

Also read: Advocate General, Bihar gets cabinet minister status after 13th amendment in the Appendix-3 of Bihar Service Code