Police disciplinary punishment cannot be revised after the six-month period prescribed by Rule 28.

Uttam Kumar, a Bihar Rail Police constable, faced departmental proceedings following his arrest in connection with Jai Nagar P.S. Case No. 179 of 2017.

After an initial dismissal was set aside on appeal and the matter remanded for fresh inquiry, the Superintendent of Police imposed a lesser punishment on 28 February 2019: reversion to the basic pay scale for five years.

Kumar did not challenge that order.

The authorities initiated review on 11 July 2020, and the Deputy Inspector General of Police dismissed him on 10 March 2022.

Kumar challenged the dismissal, arguing, among other things, that review had been initiated outside the applicable six-month period and by an authority lacking jurisdiction.

The judgment also recorded Kumar’s reliance on a Police Headquarters letter concerning breath-analyser evidence and on the decision in Vinod Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Whether the review of the 28 February 2019 punishment, initiated on 11 July 2020, was barred by the six-month limit applicable under Rule 28 of the Rules of 2005.

Whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police could exercise review powers under Rule 853 A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978, without reference to the Inspector General of Police.

Whether the dismissal order should be set aside in light of the decision in the co-accused constable’s case, Vinod Roy.

Rule 853 A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978, provides that the Inspector General may call for a departmental file and pass appropriate orders; a Deputy Inspector General may call for a file but must refer it to the Inspector General with a recommendation for orders.

The Court applied Rule 28 of the Rules of 2005, which permits revision of specified disciplinary orders within six months of the order proposed to be revised.

Relying on the reasoning reproduced from Vinod Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors. and the precedent discussed there, including Avinash Chandra v. State of Bihar, the Court treated the six-month period as governing the review.

The punishment order was made on 28 February 2019, but review proceedings were initiated on 11 July 2020—approximately one year and five months later, beyond Rule 28’s six-month limit.

The Court therefore held that the review was time-barred and set aside the resulting dismissal.

It also noted that the co-accused’s case had been decided in his favour on the same issue.

Although Kumar raised questions about the reviewing officer’s authority and the use of breath-analyser evidence, the judgment’s dispositive reasoning rested on the time limit; it did not separately decide those grounds.

It directed the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Muzaffarpur, to calculate and pay the arrears arising from the setting aside of the dismissal, including salary, within three months of production of the judgment.

The 28 February 2019 punishment was not set aside; the judgment records that Kumar had accepted it and that it had attained finality.