The Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has declined to grant relief to 2011-batch Indian Police Service officer Aditya Kumar in connection with the alleged attempt to exert undue pressure on the former Director General of Police by misusing the identity of the Chief Justice. The tribunal formally dismissed a plea seeking the quashing of disciplinary action initiated against the senior officer, who stands accused of orchestrating a conspiracy to influence top police authorities by assuming the identity of the former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.
Departmental Inquiry Empowered to Proceed Independently
A division bench comprising judicial member Justice Narendra Kumar Johri and administrative member Kumar Rajesh Chandra ruled that the administration remains competent to independently probe allegations of professional misconduct under disciplinary rules. The tribunal observed that departmental disciplinary proceedings are not precluded from advancing simply because criminal proceedings connected to the matter remain pending before the relevant judicial forums.
The administrative framework operates on distinct parameters that separate internal discipline from the broader processes of criminal law. Departmental investigations focus on adherence to service conduct and public duty, allowing authorities to scrutinize procedural impropriety without waiting for a parallel judicial verdict. On this basis, the bench held that the pendency of judicial proceedings did not constitute a viable ground to terminate the disciplinary inquiry against the officer.
Origin in Economic Offences Unit Investigation
The disciplinary measures against Kumar trace their origins to a criminal case initiated by the Economic Offences Unit, which lodged a formal first information report in October 2022. According to the state authorities, the central charge involves creating a fabricated identity of the high court chief justice to contact the state police leadership and secure favorable outcomes.
The tribunal observed that the charges strike at the core of administrative conduct, reinforcing the government’s authority to examine whether service discipline was violated. The bench underscored that public service standards demand independent administrative accountability whenever serious allegations of misrepresentation and improper influence are leveled against an official entrusted with law enforcement responsibilities.
Tribunal Expresses Concern Over Prolonged Proceedings
While ruling against any intervention in the inquiry, the tribunal expressed serious concern over the protracted pendency and delay in resolving the administrative proceedings against Kumar. It noted that inquiries involving senior officers must be concluded in a fair, structured, and timely manner rather than lingering indefinitely without clear resolution.
The ruling follows recent administrative developments involving the officer, as the Bihar government had concluded another separate departmental proceeding against Aditya Kumar just eleven days prior to the tribunal’s order. The tribunal held that while prolonged inquiries are undesirable, the current charges must be carried forward to their procedural conclusion through the established administrative inquiry process.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
