IPS officer Alok Kumar.
DH file photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has refused to stay an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), setting aside the charge memo issued by the state government, on the orders of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, against senior IPS officer Alok Kumar. A division bench comprising Justices Shyam Prasad and TM Nadaf declined the plea for an interim order of stay moved by the state government in its petition challenging the CAT order.
The issue pertains to an audio clip of an illegally intercepted conversation/call surfaced in the media in August 2019. After the FIR, the case was transferred to the CBI. The CBI filed its first closure report dated in June 2021 and recommended regular departmental action in September 2021.
In 2023, the then Basavaraj Bommai government had not found it fit to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Alok Kumar. The fresh charge memo against Alok Kumar was issued on May 9, 2025.
On Alok Kumar’s application challenging this memo, the CAT chairperson Ranjit More had opined that the timing of the charge memo legitimately invites doubt about the propriety of exercise of process of conducting departmental enquiry. The CAT said the charge memo was revived two years after the previous Chief Minister’s note against the enquiry, and just days before Alok Kumar’s scheduled promotion to the rank of Director-General of Police by the end of May 2025.
Challenging the CAT order, the state government claimed that the interference by the tribunal at the stage of charge sheet/show cause notice in departmental proceedings is contrary to settled legal position.
“What has been issued is a notice under Rule 8(4) of All India Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1969 whereby it has been stated that it is proposed to hold an inquiry against him. The perusal of charges cited show that they are very serious, and the supporting documents indicate that there is substantial material for the department to prove the charges,” the state government said.
However, the division bench observed that the Tribunal's interference was based on the decision taken by a Chief Minister on May 9, 2023, and the Tribunal also interfered on the question whether it was open to the next Chief Minister to review this decision.
“On perusal of the records, and upon hearing the learned Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the stay of the Tribunal's order would result in commencement of the proceedings which has remained stayed for the last seven to eight months and that circumstances are not exceptional to permit the same. It is ordered accordingly, and the State shall be at liberty to seek expeditious disposal of the petition,” the division bench said while adjourning the matter to December 4.