Timing alone does not prove mala fides, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held in refusing to quash disciplinary proceedings against an IPS officer accused of involvement in a plot to impersonate a former Patna High Court Chief Justice. The State has been asked to try to finish the inquiry within six months.
Patna: A charge memorandum served on Bihar cadre IPS officer Aditya Kumar will stand. The Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held that a pending criminal case does not prevent the government from examining allegations of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings, and that the timing of the memorandum is not by itself proof of mala fides [Aditya Kumar v. Union of India and Others].
Judicial Member Justice Narendra Kumar Johari and Administrative Member Kumar Rajesh Chandra heard the matter, reserving judgment on September 30, 2026 and pronouncing it on October 13, 2026. Member (A) Chandra wrote the order.
Six months, and an inquiry that goes on
The Tribunal rejected the challenge to the charge memorandum and held that his promotion claim cannot be decided at this stage. It directed the State to proceed with the inquiry and endeavour to conclude it preferably within six months, and to give the officer a fair opportunity of defence. He must participate; if he does not cooperate, the State may proceed ex parte, and his non-cooperation must not be used as an excuse to prolong the inquiry. The Tribunal noted that he has been under suspension for a long time and that the respondents ought to have moved with greater expedition. It left all questions on the merits of the charges open.
Why the Tribunal would not step in
Interference at the charge memorandum stage is justified only in exceptional cases, the Tribunal said, such as want of jurisdiction, a legal bar, or demonstrable mala fides, bias or extraneous purpose. On the timing, it found that the Home Department had called for a disciplinary proposal on December 7, 2022, and that the proposal was received on February 20, 2025, before the March 2025 order.
“…chronology or proximity in time, by itself, does not establish mala fide.”
On the overlap with the criminal case, it held:
“A criminal prosecution and a departmental proceeding operate in different fields and are governed by different standards of scrutiny that is proof beyond all reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of probability.”
The officer had relied on a Principal Bench decision quashing a charge memorandum against another Bihar cadre IPS officer. The Tribunal distinguished it: the charge there concerned official negligence, whereas this one relates to alleged personal conduct leading to a criminal case. It also noted that one article of charge concerns alleged unauthorised absence from the headquarters fixed during suspension, a factual matter for the Inquiry Officer. The delay in completing the process may legitimately call for explanation, it remarked, but could not by itself show retaliation.
FIR No. 33/2022 and the suspension
The officer was named as an accused in FIR No. 33/2022, registered by the Economic Offences Unit in Patna on October 15, 2022. According to the State, an individual used mobile and WhatsApp calls, claiming to be the then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, to contact the Director General of Police and other senior officials and press for favourable administrative decisions concerning a senior officer. These are allegations. They are untested, the Tribunal has expressed no opinion on them, and the officer is presumed innocent in the criminal case.
He was suspended on October 18, 2022 under Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. He surrendered before the criminal court on December 5, 2023 in compliance with a Supreme Court order and was granted bail on April 25, 2024; the chargesheet in the criminal case was filed on March 6, 2024.
Meanwhile, the officer had challenged the extension of his suspension. In OA No. 907 of 2024, decided on March 20, 2025, the Tribunal held that orders extending the suspension beyond October 17, 2023 were without authority, because the case did not involve corruption and the State had relied on its State Review Committee instead of the Central Review Committee. Five days later, on March 25, 2025, the Home Department issued the charge memorandum, communicated on April 8, 2025, under Rule 8 of the 1969 Rules, alleging violation of Rules 3(1), 9 and 18 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
The two sides
The officer argued that the memorandum came after an unexplained delay of more than two years and just after he succeeded before the Tribunal and began contempt proceedings, so it was retaliatory and aimed at denying him promotion to Deputy Inspector General. He said the charges arose from the same facts as the criminal case, and relied on Union of India v. J. Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286 and State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna. The State countered that disciplinary action had been under consideration since December 2022, that he had filed no defence even after an extension, and that criminal and departmental proceedings operate in different fields.
What the order settles
The order restates a settled limit on service tribunals: a charge memorandum is not normally interfered with at the threshold on a plea of mala fides unless the material actually shows it, and the overlap of departmental and criminal proceedings is no automatic bar. At the same time, the six-month target is a reminder that long-running disciplinary proceedings against suspended officers carry their own costs.
Case Title: Aditya Kumar v. Union of India and Others [OA No. 050/00389/2025]
Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Johari (Judicial Member) and Kumar Rajesh Chandra (Administrative Member), Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench
Date of Order: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Advocate M.P. Dixit for the applicant; Advocates T.N. Thakur, Sarvdeo Singh, A.K. Sharma and Sanjay Kumar for the respondents