Patna High Court
Vinod RoyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that under Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the time limit for exercising revision under Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual is six months, and any revision order passed after that period is invalid.
Summary
Vinod Roy, a police constable, was suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceedings after an arrest in 2017. The disciplinary authority reduced his pay and later the Director General of Police dismissed him under Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual. The petitioner challenged the enquiry report, the pay reduction, and the dismissal, arguing that the revision was made beyond the permissible time. The Court examined whether the term "reasonable time" in Rule 853A(a) imposes a statutory limit, and held that Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 mandates a six‑month period for any revision. Since the DGP’s dismissal order was issued more than two years after the original order, it was declared ultra vires and set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with arrears of salary.
Issues considered
- Whether the term "reasonable time" in Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual imposes a specific time limit for exercising revision of disciplinary orders
- Whether Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 applies to police personnel and prescribes a six‑month limit for revision
Subjects
- reasonable time
- revision
- disciplinary action
- Bihar CCA Rules 2005
- Rule 853A(a)
- police service
- writ petition
- reinstatement
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4721 of 2022
======================================================
Vinod Roy Son of Late Bhim Roy Resident of Village- Darahpur, P.O.-
Churamanpur, P.S.- Audhyogik Churamanpur, District- Buxar (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police (Prohibition), Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railway, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Railway at Muzaffarpur, District-
Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
7. Enquiry Officer-cum-Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway
Sonepur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
Mr. Chetan Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar (AC to GP-4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-01-2026
Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“I. To issue an appropriate writ /
order / direction, in the nature of
Certiorari, quashing the enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
2/15
report dated 30.09.2018 submitted by
the Enquiry officer-cum- Senior
Superintendent of Police, Railway
sonepur in departmental proceeding
no. 29/17 (Rail, Muzaffarpur), as
contained in Annexure – 7.
II. To issue an appropriate writ / order
/ direction, in the nature of Certiorari,
for quashing order dated 30.10.2018
passed by the Superintendent of
Police, Railway Muzaffarpur, by
which the pay of the petitioner has
been reduced to basic pay (grade pay)
.i.e. from Grade pay of Rs. 2800/-
(level-5) to Grade pay of Rs. 2000/-
(level 3) for five years and the
petitioner would not receive the pay of
his suspension period from 3.07.2017
to 19.07.2017 except the subsistence
allowance which he has been paid as
contained in Annexure-10.
III. To issue an appropriate writ /
order / direction, in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order
dated 25.12.2021 passed by the
Director General of Police, Bihar,
Patna in purported exercise of power
under Rule 853 A (a) of the Bihar
Police Manual, 1978 (vol-1) by which
the petitioner has been dismissed from
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
3/15
service.
IV. To issue an appropriate writ /
order / direction, in the nature of
mandamus commanding the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner
in Bihar Police Service with all
consequential benefits.
V. To any other relief or reliefs for
which the Petitioner is found to be
entitled in the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable
in the Bihar Police on 01.06.1999. At the relevant period, he
was posted in the Bihar Police Rail at Muzaffarpur in the year
2010. He further submits that the petitioner was made accused
in Jainagar P.S. Case No. 179 of 2017, which resulted in his
arrest and suspension, and finally a disciplinary order was
passed following the charge and enquiry report, contained in
Memo No. 2674 dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-10). He further
submits that the petitioner has not challenged the said order in
appeal, but he has received a letter indicating that the higher
authority has proposed his dismissal from service. He further
submits that it is true that the higher authority may take such
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
4/15
decision in accordance with Rule 853 A (a) of the Bihar Police
Manual, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1978’),
but submits that such decision, to exercise the said power, has to
be made within a reasonable period of time. Senior counsel
submits that what constitutes a reasonable time has been
decided by this Hon’ble Court in a series of cases, particularly
vide order dated 22.03.2024 passed in C.W.J.C No. 7496 of
2023 (Avinash Chandra Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.),
wherein, reference has been made to different cases, i.e., order
dated 06.01.2021 passed in C.W.J.C No. 7906 of 2020
(Ananjay Singh @ Ananjay Kumar Singh Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors.) reported in 2021 (1) PLJR 473, as well as order
dated 06.11.2023 passed in C.W.J.C No. 25445 of 2019 (Md.
Giaaul Hak Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors). In the said cases, it
has been held that the reasonable time shall be six months, as in
the case of Md. Giaaul Hak (supra), it has been decided that the
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar CCA Rules 2005’)
shall be applicable to such category of employees, including the
petitioner, who come within the purview of the Bihar Police
Manual. Hence, Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 is very
much clear that the time prescribed for revision is only six
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
5/15
months.
4. In the present case, the said period exceeds three
years. Therefore, for this reason, Senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the order passed by the Director General
of Police, Bihar, Patna, dated 25.12.2021 is not sustainable in
the eye of law and is fit to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the
petitioner himself opted not to challenge the disciplinary order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, and it is well within the
power of the higher authority to revise the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority under Rule 853 A (a) of the Rules of
1978. He further submits that there is no time limit mentioned in
the Bihar Police Manual and only a reasonable time has been
prescribed. However, what shall be the reasonable time is
nowhere mentioned in the Bihar Police Manual. Therefore,
according to him, the order passed by the Director General of
Police, Bihar, Patna, removing the petitioner is absolutely in
accordance with law and there is no need of any interference.
6. After hearing the parties, the only question
which has to be considered in the present writ petition is
whether the reasonable time mentioned in Rule 853 A (a) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
6/15
Rules of 1978 prescribes any time limit, or whether it can be
exercised without any limitation of time. The said provision of
law states as follows:-
“Inspector-General may call
for the file in any case even when no appeal
lies and pass such order as he may deem fit.
The Deputy Inspector-General may call-for
any file but he should refer it to the
Inspector- General with his recommendation
for his order. The above action should be
taken within a reasonable time from the date
of final order in departmental proceeding.”
7. In the said provision, it has been mentioned that
the action is to be taken within a reasonable time, and it is true
that the term “reasonable time” has not been defined. However,
it is also true that in the judgment of Md. Giaaul Hak (supra),
this Court has held as follows:-
“9. Upon going through Rule 824 A of
Bihar Police Manual, it transpires to
this court that there are broad
classification of 5 types of Police
personnel's which have been
discussed in the said manual.
10. The first category is those persons
who comes within the category of
Indian Police Service against whom
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
7/15
disciplinary action shall be directed to
be instituted according to the All India
Services (Discipline and Appeal),
Rules, 1969.
11. The second category is Deputy
Superintendent and their equivalent
ranks against whom the disciplinary
action shall be taken according to
Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1930.
12. The third category is the
Ministerial Officers against whom
disciplinary action has directed to be
taken according to Bihar Subordinate
Services (Discipline and Appeal),
Rules 1935.
13. The fourth category is of the
members of Bihar Sashastra Police
for whom indication has been made
that disciplinary rule has been given
in separate manual.
14. The fifth category has been
divided into 2 sub categories viz, first
is for those personnel’s against whom
action shall be taken according to
Rule 824 A(b), if gazetted and second
for those personnel’s against whom
action shall be taken according to
Rule 824 A(c), if non-gazetted, unless
expressly proposed otherwise for any
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
8/15
special person. It is made clear in
Rule 32 of Bihar CCA Rules 2005 that
by enactment of the said Bihar CCA
Rules 2005, rules of 1930 and rules of
1935 mentioned above were repeal,
meaning thereby, the Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005 has adopted the rules of
1930 and 1935 both.
15. In this background, it becomes
crystal clear to this Court that for the
police officials whether gazetted or
non-gazetted, the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005 shall be applicable to take
disciplinary action against them. In
this view of the matter, this Court
rejects the contention of the
respondent that police manual shall
only apply because police manual
itself indicates that disciplinary action
shall run according to disciplinary
rules 1930 & 1935, which are
replaced by Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
After conjugal reading of Rules 824 A
of Bihar Police Manual read with
Rule 32 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the
issue about applicability of the rule in
the disciplinary action against the
police personnel is hereby cleared that
in all types of Police personnel’s in
Bihar CCA Rules 2005 shall apply.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
9/15
8. When it has been decided that the Bihar CCA
Rules 2005 shall apply, it is necessary to read Rule 853 A (a) of
the Rules of 1978 with Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005.
This Court deems fit to quote Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules
2005, which states as follows:-
“28. Revision.
(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in these Rules,-
(i) the Government, or
(ii) the head of a department directly
under the Government, in the case of
a Government servant serving in a
department or office, under the
control of such head of a department,
or
(iii) the appellate authority, or
(iv) any other authority specified in
this behalf by the Government by a
general or special order, and within
such time as may be prescribed in
such general or special order, may at
any time within six months of the date
of the order proposed to be revised,
either on his or its own motion or
otherwise call for the records of any
inquiry and revise any order made
under these Rules or under the Rules
repealed by the Rule 32 (from which
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
10/15
an appeal is allowed but from which
no appeal has been preferred or from
which no appeal is allowed), after
consultation with the Commission
where such consultation is necessary,
and may-
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the
order, or
(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set
aside the penalty imposed by the
order, or impose any penalty where no
penalty has been imposed, or
(c) remit the case to the authority,
making the order or to any other
authority, directing such authority, to
make such further inquiry as he may
consider proper in the circumstances
of the case, or
(d) pass such other orders as it may
deem fit:
Provided that no order imposing or
enhancing any penalty shall be made
by any revising authority unless the
Government Servant concerned has
been given a reasonable opportunity
of making a representation against the
penalty proposed and where it is
proposed to impose any of the
penalties specified in clauses (vi) to
(x) of Rule 14 or to enhance the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
11/15
penalty imposed by the order sought
to be revised to any of the penalties
specified in those clauses, no such
penalty shall be imposed without an
inquiry in the manner laid down in
Rule 17 and after giving a reasonable
opportunity to the Government
Servant concerned of showing cause
against the penalty proposed on the
evidence adduced during the inquiry
and except after consultation with the
Commission where such consultation
is necessary:
Provided further that no power of
revision shall be exercised by the head
of department, unless-
(i) the authority which made the order
in appeal, or
(ii) the authority to which an appeal
would lie, where no appeal has been
preferred, is subordinate to him.
(2) No proceeding for revision shall
be commenced until after
(i) the expiry of the period of
limitation for an appeal, or
(ii) the disposal of the appeal, where
any such appeal has been preferred.
(3) An application for revision shall
be dealt with in the same manner as if
it were an appeal under these Rules.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
12/15
9. According to this Court, Rule 28 of the Bihar
CCA Rules 2005 is very clear that the time limit for revision is
six months, particularly in light of the order passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Avinash Chandra
(supra). The relevant paras 7 & 8 of the said order are quoted
herein as under:-
“7. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the
materials on record. As far as the
order dated 08.09.2022, passed by the
Director General of Police, Bihar,
Patna, enhancing the punishment
inflicted vide order dated 07.10.2022,
passed by the Inspector General of
Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, is
concerned, firstly, this Court finds that
the same has been passed after a lapse
of almost one year of passing of the
order of punishment dated 07.10.2021
by the disciplinary authority, hence,
considering the law laid down by this
Court in the cases of Anjani Kumar
Singh (supra), Ananjay Singh
(supra) and Md. Giaaul Hak (supra),
this Court would hold that since Rule
28 of the Rules, 2005 would govern
the field, the Director General of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
13/15
Police, Patna could have revised the
punishment inflicted upon the
petitioner by the disciplinary authority
vide order dt. 07.10.2021, only within
a period of six months of passing of
the same, however, admittedly, in the
present case, the punishment, inflicted
by the disciplinary authority, has been
revised by the Director General of
Police, Bihar vide order dt. 8.09.2022,
after almost one year, which is not
permissible in the eyes of law, hence
the order dt. 08.09.2022, passed by
the Director General of Police, Bihar,
Patna, being contrary to law is set
aside.
8. Yet another aspect of the matter is
that the impugned order dated
08.09.2022, passed by the Director
General of Police, Bihar Patna is
cryptic and an unreasoned order,
which nowhere deals with the
submissions made by the petitioner in
his reply to the show-cause notice
dated 21.06.2022 and on the contrary,
in a single line, it has been stated that
nothing new has been submitted by the
petitioner, apart from the fact that the
said order dated 08.09.2022 does not
specify anywhere, the reasons which
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
14/15
might have weighed in the mind of the
Director General of Police, Bihar, to
take a different view from the view
taken by the disciplinary authority
while inflicting minor punishment vide
order dated 07.10.2021, so as to
warrant enhancement of the
punishment. Reference in this
connection be had to the judgments
rendered by this Court in the cases of
Sunil Kumar (supra) and Abha
Kumari (supra), as also to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Oryx
Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
Consequently, on the foregoing
ground as well, the order dated
08.09.2022, passed by the Director
General of Police, Bihar, Patna is
held to be perverse, illegal and
contrary to law.”
10. This Court, on the basis of the reasoning and
the relevant law, which are very clear, is of the firm view that
the time limit shall be six months only. In the present case, the
final decision was taken on 30.10.2018, whereas, the intimation
for revision took place in the year 2020 i.e. after a lapse of two
years. Therefore, the order dated 25.12.2021 contained in Letter
Patna High Court CWJC No.4721 of 2022 dt.19-01-2026
15/15
No. 597 passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
(Annexure-16) is hereby set aside.
11. The Superintendent of Police, Railway at
Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 6) is hereby directed to calculate
the arrears of the petitioner, which have arisen due to setting
aside of the order of termination passed by the Director General
of Police, Bihar, Patna, including his salary, and shall ensure
payment of the same within three months from the date of
production of a copy of this order.
12. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation
and direction, the present writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…