The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, has dismissed a plea filed by Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Aditya Kumar seeking the quashing of a disciplinary charge memorandum issued against him by the Government of Bihar. In its ruling, the tribunal declined to intervene at the preliminary stage of the departmental proceedings, holding that the initiation of the inquiry was not demonstrably vitiated by mala fide intent, despite the officer’s claims that the action was a retaliatory measure for his legal challenges against a prolonged suspension. The tribunal directed the state authorities to proceed with the inquiry and ensure its conclusion within a period of six months, emphasizing that the officer must participate in the process as required by service regulations.

The dispute originated from the officer’s involvement in a 2022 criminal case registered by the Economic Offences Unit (EOU), Bihar, which involved allegations of impersonating a high-ranking judicial official to influence administrative decisions. Following his initial suspension in October 2022, the applicant had faced a series of administrative orders extending his suspension period. In earlier proceedings, the CAT had found that these extensions—beyond the one-year threshold for non-corruption cases—had been implemented without the mandatory approval of the Central Review Committee, effectively rendering them void after October 2023. When the state government subsequently issued a formal charge memorandum in March 2025, the applicant challenged it, arguing that the timing—immediately following his legal success in overturning the suspension extensions—was evidence of a malicious attempt to harass him and derail his career progression, particularly his promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.

Addressing the applicant’s core argument regarding the timing of the charge sheet, the bench observed that the administrative process for initiating disciplinary action had been under consideration since December 2022, well before the applicant’s successful challenge in the tribunal. The judges maintained that the mere proximity of dates between the tribunal’s earlier orders and the issuance of the charge memorandum could not be construed as conclusive evidence of bad faith. As the court noted, “Chronology or proximity in time, by itself, does not establish mala fide.” The tribunal further clarified that while the delay in issuing the formal memorandum was regrettable, it did not provide a legal basis for halting the proceedings at the threshold, especially as the disciplinary authority had provided specific articles of charge and a list of supporting materials.

A significant portion of the tribunal’s reasoning focused on the relationship between criminal prosecution and departmental inquiry. The applicant had contended that since the criminal charges were based on the same set of facts, the disciplinary proceeding was redundant and essentially served as a tool for continued punishment. The CAT rejected this assertion, reiterating that these two processes operate within separate spheres. While the criminal trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a departmental inquiry is governed by the principle of preponderance of probability. The tribunal emphasized that the disciplinary authority is tasked with evaluating the officer’s conduct against the standards of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, rather than determining criminal culpability.

The charge memorandum includes specific allegations regarding the officer’s conduct in his personal capacity, which the state argued constitutes a violation of established service rules. Notably, one of the articles of charge involves an allegation of unauthorized absence from the designated headquarters during the period of suspension. The tribunal observed that this specific charge necessitates a factual determination that should be handled within the scope of a departmental inquiry. According to the bench, “Whether the applicant was in fact absent, whether such absence was authorized and what explanation he has in respect thereof are factual matters which cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon in the present proceedings at the stage of challenge to the charge memorandum.”

Throughout the proceedings, the respondents maintained that they had acted in accordance with the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. They argued that the officer had been granted ample opportunity to submit a statement of defense, including an additional period following the expiry of the standard 30-day window, yet he had failed to participate. The tribunal remarked that while the officer is entitled to challenge the validity of the disciplinary process in a court of law, he cannot simultaneously decline to participate in the ongoing inquiry without a stay order. The failure to submit a defense was viewed by the tribunal as an unwillingness to engage with the internal mechanisms of the department, thereby undermining his claim that the proceedings were purely an instrument of harassment.

In balancing the rights of the officer with the government’s responsibility to maintain discipline, the tribunal rejected the request to quash the charge memorandum but expressed caution regarding the duration of the matter. The bench explicitly addressed the prolonged period during which the officer has remained under the shadow of these allegations, acknowledging that such delays are inherently prejudicial to a public servant’s career. By setting a strict six-month timeline for the conclusion of the inquiry, the tribunal sought to ensure that the process does not remain pending indefinitely. The court also clarified that its decision to permit the inquiry to proceed was not an endorsement of the merits of the charges, leaving those determinations for the inquiry officer to make based on evidence.

The operative order requires the state government to provide the applicant with a fair and reasonable opportunity to present his defense. It further cautions that should the officer choose not to cooperate with the appointed inquiry officer, the department is at liberty to proceed on an ex-parte basis. Conversely, the tribunal warned that the officer’s non-cooperation should not be utilized by the state as an excuse to further extend the timeline for the disciplinary proceedings. With this, the matter now transitions back to the administrative authorities to finalize the inquiry, while the applicant retains the right to present his defense under the relevant service rules. The tribunal’s order underscores that the threshold for judicial intervention in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings remains high, necessitating clear proof of jurisdictional defect or overt malice, neither of which was found to be sufficient in the current circumstances.