Bihar HC Sets Aside Police Personnel’s Dismissal, Finding DGP’s Reopening 3 Years 8 Months Later Breached Police Manual.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the DGP’s decision to reopen the matter after approximately three years and eight months was made within a reasonable time under Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the DGP’s order dated 15 September 2017, the dismissal order dated 27 July 2019, the appellate order dated 29 January 2020, and the memorial-rejection order dated 28/30 June 2023.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to provide consequential relief, including salary and other benefits, within 60 days.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the Director General of Police’s order dated 15 September 2017, which set aside an earlier punishment order dated 28 December 2013 and directed that departmental proceedings be reinitiated.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

He contended that the intervention came approximately three years and eight months after the punishment order and contravened Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

The petitioner also challenged his subsequent dismissal dated 27 July 2019, the rejection of his appeal on 29 January 2020, and the rejection of his memorial on 28/30 June 2023.

p. 2, 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the DGP’s decision to reopen the matter after approximately three years and eight months was made within a reasonable time under Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978.

pp. 3, 5–6

ii.2. Whether the subsequent dismissal, appellate order, and memorial order could stand if the DGP’s 2017 order was unlawful.

p. 6

03Law Applied

Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 empowers the Inspector-General to call for a departmental file and pass an appropriate order, and permits the Deputy Inspector-General to call for a file and refer it to the Inspector-General with a recommendation; the action must be taken “within a reasonable time” from the final departmental order.

p. 3

The Court also considered Vinod Roy v. State of Bihar & Others, CWJC No. 4721 of 2022, which relied on Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and earlier authority for the proposition that revision under that rule must occur within six months.

pp. 3–5

The six-month period concerned Rule 28; the present judgment applied Rule 853A(a)’s reasonable-time requirement.

pp. 3–5

04Reasoning

The Court found substance in the petitioner’s challenge because the DGP acted approximately three and a half years after the original punishment order, a delay it held inconsistent with the requirement in Rule 853A(a) that such action be taken within a reasonable time.

pp. 5–6

In reaching that conclusion, it relied on the reasoning in Vinod Roy concerning the impermissibility of delayed revision, although that case addressed Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

pp. 3–5

Once the DGP’s order was set aside, the Court also set aside the later dismissal and the orders rejecting the petitioner’s appeal and memorial.

p. 6