Suspension order fails to show dereliction of duty, IPS officer's counsel tells Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The advocate for IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikash on Friday told before the Karnataka High Court that his suspension order had no material to hold prima facie that there was dereliction of duty.

Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for the IPS officer, said that the state government's stand in this matter and in the suo motu PIL proceedings, pertaining to June 4 stampede outside M Chinnaswamy stadium, were somewhat contrary to each other.

A division bench headed by Justice SG Pandit is hearing the petitions filed by the state government and the RCB management. They have challenged the July 1, 2025 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), setting aside the order of suspension against Vikash Kumar, in connection with the stampede incident.

Referring to the status report in the suo motu proceedings, the senior advocate for the officer said that the state government claimed to have devised a bandobast scheme as a precautionary measure. It said that a meeting was held between all the DCPs for bandobast. The advocate further said that everyone was aware that the players were received at the airport, taken to a hotel and then to the Vidhana Soudha. When all necessary steps were taken, the suspension of police officers was a knee jerk reaction, he said.

“It is the classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. You find fault either way,” Dhyan Chinnappa said, adding, “Yesterday, a statement was made that the police officers acted as servants of someone, which is rather difficult to countenance if it is the statement of the state government.”

The advocate referred to the state government’s stand that an intelligence report received by the Chief Minister was also relied upon before passing the order of suspension.

It was argued that the very intelligence officer was transferred in connection with the stampede incident and hence intelligence is of little consequence. The advocate said that the All India Service Rules stipulated that the government must be satisfied that either suspension is necessary or desirable.

“They must have material first to show that it is necessary. The contemplation of departmental inquiry is not written in the order and the reference to the pending inquiry in the order is the magisterial inquiry, not the inquiry against the officer, "Dhyan Chinnappa said.