Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Alok Kumar Ips vs Government Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00240/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON: 13.08.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 04.09.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS (KN-1994)
Son of Late Muralidhar Thakur
Aged about 56 years
ADGP, Training, Carlton House,
CID Office, Palace Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ... Applicant
(By Shri Dhyan Chinnappa, Senior Advocate along with Advocate
Shri Pradyumna L.N. - through video conference)
Vs.
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms
(DPAR)
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001
Rep. by Under Secretary DPAR (Service-4). ...Respondents
(By Shri Reuben Jacob, AAG along with Advocate
Shri M. Rajakumar)
2
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed on 13.05.2025 for quashment of the charge sheet dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure - A1) and for direction to issue the promotion order to the next higher rank in accordance with the recommendation of the DPC of 2023 and 2024. The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under:-
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the impugned notice bearing No. DPAR 161 SPS 2021 (P1) dated 09.05.2025 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka produced as ANNEXURE-A-1;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents to consider the Applicant's promotion to the next higher rank in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) made in the years 2023 and 2024, without any further delay;
iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. As per applicant's case, in August, 2019, an alleged audio clip surfaced in the media and thereafter, an FIR was registered against the applicant. The case was transferred to the CBI and after investigation, the CBI filed the closure report in the Special Court. The Court directed further investigation. After further investigation, the CBI again submitted the closure report 3 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE which was accepted by the Special Court for CBI cases. When the first report was filed by CBI in Court at that time, one letter was also sent to the Department for taking the departmental proceedings against the applicant and one Bhaskar Rao, IPS. But the department did not take any step regarding the initiation of departmental proceedings against Bhaskar Rao, who retired from services in the year 2023. The matter related to the applicant was submitted to the Chief Minister of Karnataka, who decided to drop the proceedings. In other words, the Chief Minister ordered that there is no any necessity to initiate any departmental proceedings against the applicant. The applicant received the information in this regard on 06.05.2024 under the RTI Act, 2025. But after the aforesaid closure at the level of CM, the respondents issued the charge sheet to the applicant which is Annexure -A1 dated 09.05.2025.
3. The applicant challenged the aforesaid charge sheet by filing this petition. It is submitted by the applicant that in the absence of any fresh material, the respondents authorities have issued the impugned charge sheet dated 09.05.2025, seeking a revival of departmental enquiry proceedings against the applicant after a lapse of 04 years from the date of alleged incident (happened in August, 2019). The timing of issuance of the impugned notice, just before the applicant's promotion which is 4 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE due on 21.05.2025, raises serious doubt about the malafides intention behind the same. The DPC recommended the name of the applicant for the promotion to the post of "Director General of Police" from the present position of "Additional Director General of Police". The applicant having 30 years of experience and also eligible for the promotion to the aforesaid post, but the issuance of such a notice particularly at this stage appears to be wholly unwarranted and arbitrary. It is strongly suggested an ulterior motive to create artificial impediments in the applicant's legitimate promotional prospects. The timing and manner of issuance of impugned notice shows that it is not driven by genuine administrative exigencies but rather by extraneous consideration intended to frustrate the applicant's promotion which had already been duly recommended by the competent authority through a well-constituted DPC in process.
4. It is again submitted by the applicant that issuance of such a notice is not only abrupt and arbitrary but also vitiated the very process of impartial consideration for appointment to the promotional post. It raises serious concerns about the malafides intention, timing, and procedural impropriety, especially when no prior adverse material or proceedings were ever communicated to the applicant before the aforesaid DPC related process commenced. The disciplinary proceedings particularly at 5 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE this juncture, has the effect of prejudicing the applicant's candidature and undermining the fairness of the selection process, especially when the officer being considered is at the threshold of being evaluated for the highest office in the Police hierarchy and is on the verge of being promoted as the Director General of Police, a position that he is entitled to hold immediately upon the present DG & IGP attaining superannuation.
5. The respondents opposed the aforesaid claim by filing the written reply statement on 05.06.2025. It is submitted by the respondents that notwithstanding the outcome in a criminal case, departmental enquiry can be initiated on the same set of charges as per the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted by the respondents that the applicant is an officer of 1994 batch of the IPS. The DPC held on 04.12.2024 approved the name of the applicant but he was not promoted due to non- availability of vacancy. The petitioner did not inform about the closure of 'B' report to the Government even though the same was accepted by the Court on 13.02.2024. It is again submitted that previously, disciplinary authority has opined that there is no need to hold enquiry against the petitioner and another officer with regard to the charges levelled against them in the CBI report. However, the file was re-submitted to the disciplinary 6 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE authority for seeking orders on issuing a status report on the departmental action recommended by the CBI. The disciplinary authority reviewed the matter and ordered to hold the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, the enquiry has been initiated and the show-cause notice dated 09.05.2025 has been issued to the applicant.
6. It is again submitted by the respondents that as a matter of fact, both disciplinary and criminal proceedings may be conducted at the same time and the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable. It is also stated in the reply that the 'B' report submitted by the CBI was based upon the FIR and is purely regarding the criminal proceedings are concerned but the CBI report submitted to the Government is based on the preponderance and probabilities and recommended for regular departmental action for major penalty against the petitioner. It is also submitted by the respondents counsel that the any "noting" of the departmental file cannot be used by the Court for granting any relief. Whenever the final order is passed, only that order is relevant. The note sheet of the previous Chief Minister for closing and for not initiating any departmental action was not finalised because it was not communicated to the applicant. In addition, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Chief Minister also having the power to 7 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE review its previous decision. Therefore, the decision of review has been taken properly. Even if we presume that the previous order was final then the present Chief Minister also have the powers to review the earlier decision which was not communicated to anybody.
7. In reply to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order of previous Chief Minister was not the "noting" or "remark" of the note sheet. That was the "final order of the Chief Minister" and only information was required to be send to the CBI, not to the applicant. In case of applicant, the order was final. Therefore, without any further material, the charge sheet has been issued and without any material and justification, the order of previous Chief Minister has been reviewed by the present Chief Minister. In the aforesaid order, no any reason has been assigned for reviewing the previous order.
8. After hearing the arguments of both parties and after perusal of the entire pleadings of both parties, it can be said that the following facts are not disputed:-
a) Between 21.09.2018 to 02.08.2019, an investigation of Crime No.157/2018 of Wilson Garden Police Station was pending. Allegation was made that during the aforesaid period, illegal / unauthorized, unwarranted interception / leak of 8 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE interception to the telephones of political leaders belonging to the ruling party and the opposition party as well as their associates, relatives and also the government servants was done by the applicant. Upon the basis of aforesaid act, a Crime No. / FIR No. 6963/2019 was registered at Cyber Crime Police of Wilson Garden Police Station.
b) The case was handed over to CBI. Thereafter CBI registered the Case No. RC2172019A0006/ACU-V/AC-II/CBI New Delhi on 30.08.2019 under "Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000" and "Section 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885".
c) After investigation, the CBI submitted a closure report No.8/2021 in the concerned Court. In para 11 of the aforesaid closure report, the following conclusion and the recommendations were mentioned:-
"11. Final recommendations:
11(i) In view of the facts & circumstances discussed above and based on the preponderance of probabilities, the Competent Authority in CBI has recommended the RDA for Major Penalty against Sh. Alok Kumar, the then Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and Sh. Bhaskar Rao the then ADGP, KSRP.
11(ii) RDA:
RDA for Major Penalty against Sh. Alok Kumar (IPS 1994), Karnataka:
(a) For the violations of the SOP, [Conveyed to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, vide DO Letter No. HD/424/PRS/INTER/2011, dated 17.06.2011 pertaining to dealing with interception, handling, use, sharing, copying, storage and 9 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE destruction of messages/ telephones/ emails etc.] and Rules-628 to 634 of Police Manual by Karnataka State Police which concerns with Top Secret, Secret and Confidential Correspondence.
(b) For the violation of Rules 6, 7 and 9 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
RDA for Major Penalty against Sh. Bhaskar Rao (IPS 1990), Karnataka:
(a) Under Rule 18 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
11(iii) To be referred to the Ministry/Department for such action as may be considered appropriate:
Nil 11 (iv) To be closed and dropped for lack of proof :
Nil 11 (v) Taking action against the complainant for making false and malicious allegations:
Nil"
d) The copies of the order sheets related to the Special Court, Bangalore are also submitted by the applicant as Annexure - A2. In order dated 26.07.2021, it appears that the DSP, CBI Delhi submitted the closure report before the Court stating that there is no direct evidence to prove the allegation made in the complaint and prayed to close this case. The Court directed to issue the notice to the complainant. On 18.10.2021, the CBI Court passed the following order:-
"Further the "B" report submitted by the CBI is hereby dismissed. Further, the CBI officer is directed to conduct further investigation and submit report properly. Issue direction to the CBI in this regard."
e) After additional investigation, on 22.01.2024, the CBI again submitted the closure report. Thereafter, the Court issued 10 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the notice to the complainant and finally on 13.02.2024, the Court accepted the closure report by passing the following order:-
" Case called out, Learned P.P is present.
The Investigation Officer has filed "B-Report"
against the accused.
Thereafter this court has issued Notice to the complainant by name Kuldeep R. Jain DCP, Traffic Bengaluru.
Upon service of notice, the complainant has appeared before the court and orally submitted that he has no objection to the said "B-Report".
In the instant case, the main allegation is regarding the unauthorised disclosure/publication of the content of conversation recorded during the legal interception of the mobile no. 9880300007 by public servants.
I have perused the "B-Report" filed by the investigation officer, wherein it is reveals that, the result of examination in respect of the exhibits sent to CFSL Hyderabad, vide forwarding letter No. 19/3/RC2172019A0006/CBI/ACUV/New Delhi, dated 04/03/2020, has been received on 09/06/2022, vide Reports CFSL(H)/287/DF/39/CCH-23-25/2020, dated 31/03/2022 (M. No.417/2022). The hash value of the three audio files which were provided by Ms. S. Kushala, News 18 Kannada in a DVD shows matches with the three audio files available in the CPU beaing M.No. 853/2019/6. This further reveals that the three audio files which were aired on News 18 Kannada Channel, originated from the 'Technical Support Centre' of Bengaluru City Police. This report also establishes that Sh. Manjunath N of News 18 Kannada who carried out the interview of Sh. Alok Kumar on 04/08/2019, was not having the possession of the audio files in question.
Further, on perusal of the CFSL Report the result mentioned in the Report could not established 11 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the exact source from which Mrs. S. Kushala had received Lawfully intercepted audio files in question.
Further the Statement of the witnesses, also not disclosed anything about the material evidence against the accused. Therefore the Investigation could not establish that the lawfully intercepted audio files in question were handed over to Mrs. S. Kushala of News 18 Kannada Channel by the accused.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that, on perusal of the entire documents and statement of the witnesses it is clearly goes to show that there is no material evidence against the accused to proceed with the case. Hence "B-Report" is accepted. Case is closed.
XVII ACMM, BANGALORE. "
9. When the CBI submitted the first closure report to the Court, the recommendation was also sent to the department for taking the departmental action vide letter (Annexure - R1) dated 10.09.2021 No. 2124/3/RC 2172019A0006/ACU-V/AC-
II/CBI/New Delhi.
10. In compliance with the Court order, the entire copies of the departmental proceedings / note sheets have been submitted by the counsel for respondents. It appears from the perusal of the note sheets related to DPAR 161 SPS 2021 (P) (Annexure -
R9), that the Note No. 34 is the order dated 09.05.2023 of the then Chief Minister in which the following wording have been used:-
"34) Hon'ble CM Based on the representation submitted by Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS dated: 26.03.2023 (enclosed), I have 12 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE passed detailed orders in connected file C.No. 137312 e-HD 33 COD 2019. My orders in the connected file also holds good in this case also exonerating Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS, hence there is no need to conduct disciplinary enquiry against Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS issue orders accordingly.
Sd/-
Basavaraj Bommai Chief Minister"
11. It appears that in the aforesaid order, the Chief Minister mentioned the fact that the detailed order has been passed in the connected file No. C No.137312 e-HD 33 COD 2019. It is also mentioned by the Chief Minister that in the connecting file, he passed an order and held to exonerate the applicant, hence, there is no need to conduct disciplinary enquiry against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS. Issue orders accordingly.
12. The Chief Minister adopted the same order which was passed by the Chief Minister in the same case related to the applicant in the connected file. We also perused the note sheet in the connected file. In Note No. 80, the Chief Minister passed the detailed order upon the recommendation made by the CBI. The order says:-
"80)Hon'ble Chief Minister Shri. Alok Kumar, IPS met me personally and submitted a representation dt. 26/3/2023 (Enclosed) in which he has submitted that:
(i) CBI has submitted 'B' report to CBI Special court in which the CBI has enquired from every possible angle the possibility of Ms Kusha (News 18) getting the 13 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Audio clip and has finally come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove that who leaked the video.
(ii) Secondly Hon'ble High Court has accepted CBI submission that no evidence could be found regarding leaked video.
(iii)Shri.Alok Kumar has also submitted that he never criticised the government or the policies of the government in Media or otherwise.
(iv) He has also submitted that Joint CP Crime is the Nodal Officer regarding legal interception of Telephonic calls.
(v) Shri Alok Kumar has also submitted that the protocols regarding secret, Top secret as mentioned in Police Manual, were followed by him and CBI has not found any illegality in any of the Interception orders.
I have perused the entire file and I am satisfied with the Explanation given by Shri. Alok Kumar, IPS and accordingly hereby order. There is no need for either further Enquiry or Disciplinary Enquiry and hence the file is closed.
Issue order Accordingly.
Sd/-
Basavaraja Bommai Chief Minister"
13. Therefore, it can be said that the then "Chief Minister"
perused the entire file and was satisfied with the explanation given by the applicant and came to the conclusion that there is no need for either further enquiry or disciplinary enquiry and hence, the file was closed. He also ordered: - "Issue order accordingly."
14. As per respondents' arguments, the aforesaid order was only a 'noting' of the note sheet, which cannot be used for any 14 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE purpose by the Court. The Court can use only the 'final-order' which has been passed by the present Chief Minister and upon the basis of the aforesaid order, charge sheet has been used. In this regard, he draws attention towards the Note No.72 of the first file in which the present Chief Minister passed the order for issuing the charge sheet. Any date of order is not found in the aforesaid translated copy of the order at page no.309 and 310. But it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that date 26.07.2024 is mentioned at page no.291 of the Kannada version and on the aforesaid date, the file was submitted by the Chief Secretary with the Note No.71 to the Chief Minister. In the Note No. 71, it is mentioned that:-
"Submitted for the Orders of Hon'ble Chief Minister about informing the CBI about the decision taken by the then Chief Minister in para no 34."
15. After the order of Chief Minister in noting / order sheet No.72, the file was returned by Chief Minister on 06.05.2025. Therefore, it can be said that after the order dated 09.05.2023 (of previous C.M.) the file was again submitted after about 15 months to the present Chief Minister on 26.07.2024 and the order was passed by the present Chief Minister on 06.05.2025 about after 10 months. In the aforesaid order, it is stated:-
"The report submitted to the government by the CBI on the phone tapping allegations against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS, former Commissioner of Police, 15 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Bangalore and Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS, former ADGP, KSRP (now retired) has been examined for action.
In para no. 34, the former Hon'ble Chief Minister, has considered the appeal submitted to the government by Shri Alok Kumar and ordered that no disciplinary action is necessary against him.
On examination of the file in detail, the CBI has made the following observations in its report submitted to the government:
"In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above and based on preponderance of probabilities, the competent in CBI has recommended the RDA for major penalty against Shri Alok Kumar, the then Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and Shri Bhaskar Rao, the then ADGP, KSRP."
In view of the above recommendation, the decision to drop disciplinary action against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS has been reconsidered and disciplinary action be initiated against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS and Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS., now retired as per All India Services (Discipline & Appeals) Rules 1969. Draft charge sheet in Annexure-I to IV against Shri Alok Kumar be submitted. Since Shri Bhaskar Rao is retired, it shall be separately submitted after examining as per rules for taking action against him.
Sd/-
(Siddaramaiah) Chief Minister"
16. The file Annexure - R9 in which the Order No.34 was written/passed by the then Chief Minister was moved upon the letter received from CBI dated 10.09.2021 (Annexure - R1) along with the copy of the final report submitted by the CBI. It will be useful to refer the aforesaid letter as it is:-
"OFFICE OF SUPDT. OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH -II 16 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE 5-B, 8TH FLOOR, A-Wing, CGO Complex C.B.I. New Delhi - 110003 No. 2124/3/RC2172019A0006/ACU-V/AC- II/CBI/New Delhi Date: 10.09.2021 To The Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel and Adminsitrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka, Room No. 320, 3rd floor, Vidhana soudha, Bangalore-01 Sub: CBI Report for initiating RDA for Major Penalty against Sh. Alok Kumar, (IPS 1994), Karnataka and Shri Bhaskar Rao (IPS 1990), Karnataka.
Sir, Please refer to FIR No. RC2172019A0006/ACU- V/AC-II/CBI/New Delhi dated 30.08.2019 registered U/s 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and 26 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. It is intimated that investigation in the captioned case has been completed. On the basis of result of investigation, a Final Report vide no. 8/2021 dated 30.06.2021 was filed in the Hon'ble Court of the Additional CMM Bangalore.
3. The enclosed CBI's Report, duly signed, contains all the relevant facts of the case such as the allegations, the result of investigation and recommendations, along with oral & documentary evidence, with regard to the action to be taken against Shri Alok Kumar (IPS 1994), Karnataka and Shri Bhaskar Rao (IPS 1990), Karnataka.
4. CBI's Report duly signed, which contains all the relevant facts of the case, the result of investigation and recommendations with regard to the action to be taken against Shri Alok Kumar (IPS 1994), Karnataka and Shri Bhaskar Rao (IPS 1990), Karnataka is being forwarded.
5. The authenticated copies of lists of witnesses/documents and relied upon documents and 17 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE statements of witnesses are enclosed for perusal of the Competent Authority.
6. CBI Report may please be treated as confidential document. Further, in case any applicant seeks copy of CBI's Report or part thereof under RTI Act, view of this office may please be ascertained as per section 11 of RTI Act, before deciding the matter.
7. It is, therefore, requested that RDA for Major Penalty may be initiated against Shri Alok Kumar (IPS 1994), Karnataka and Shri Bhaskar Rao (IPS 1990), Karnataka and the status may be intimated to this office in due course.
Yours faithfully, Encl.: As above.
(Gagandeep Gambhir, IPS) Head of Branch CBI, AC-II, New Delhi"
17. It appears from the entire notings or orders of the departmental file that the details are mentioned by the department in the Note Nos. 1 to 10, thereafter, in the Note Nos. 22 to 30. After taking into consideration of the entire noting and the relevant facts of the case investigated by CBI, the then Chief Minister passed the order stated in Note No.34 and the detailed order was also passed in the connected file related to the applicant.
18. When the then C.M. passed the order No.34, he also mentioned in the order in his handwriting that: - "issue orders accordingly." It means the only work left was to issue the orders accordingly. Thereafter, in Note No.39 and 40, the Section 18 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Officer mentioned that: - "Since the charge sheet has not been issued, there is no need to issue an order to close the case." The aforesaid noting was approved by the Under Secretary in Note No.41 and the file moved to upper authorities. In Note no.44, it appears that on 31.05.2023, the Chief Secretary also approved the aforesaid noting. It means that the last authority for the communication was the Chief Secretary, who approved the proposal and came to the conclusion that no separate information is required to the CBI. In spite of the order of the C.M., the concerned authority did not communicate the aforesaid order and held that communication is not necessary.
19. The conduct of departmental authorities also shows that they accepted the Note No.34 as a final order passed by the competent authority i.e. the Chief Minister.
20. After further investigation, when the second report was filed by the CBI and approved by the Court, then the CBI again sent a letter to the Government of Karnataka on 25.06.2024 which is Annexure - R2. It is orally argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that because of second letter issued by the CBI, the matter was re-examined and re-considered. Thereafter, the review of previous order was done by the present Chief Minister. To decide the controversy, it will be useful to refer the letter Annexure - R2 dated 25.06.2024 which says:- 19
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "OFFICE OF SUPDT. OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH -II 5-B, 8TH FLOOR, A-Wing, CGO Complex C.B.I. New Delhi - 110003 No.2217/RC-06(A)/2019/ACU-V/CBI/AC-II/New Delhi Dated 25.06.2024.
To, The Chief Secretary Deptt of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Govt of Karnataka Sub:- CBI Report in RC-06(A)/2019/ACU-V/CBI/AC-
II/New Delhi recommending RDA for Major Penalty against (1) Sh Alok Kumar, IPS-1994 and (2) Sh Bhaskar Rao, IPS-1990 - regarding.
Sir, Please refer to this office letter dated 10.09.2021. It is requested to intimate action taken in RDA matter against (1) Sh Alok Kumar, IPS-1994 and (2) Sh Bhaskar Rao, IPS-1990 at the earliest.
Yours faithfully PRAVEEN KUMAR SUPDT. OF POLICE CBI/AC-II/NEW DELHI"
21. Therefore, upon perusal of the aforesaid letter, it appears that the CBI did not intimate any new fact in this second letter. The CBI earlier sent a first letter Annexure - R1 dated 10.09.2021. The facts and request made in the aforesaid previous letter was not changed. In the second letter was only a reminder in which they only sought the information about the decision taken upon the first letter dated 10.09.2021 (Annexure - 20
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE R1). Therefore, prima facie, it can be said that no further or new request was made by the CBI and upon the previous letter dated 10.09.2021, matter was duly considered in the Note Nos. 1 to 34 and the final order was passed by the then C.M.. Thereafter, the departmental noting shows that the departmental officers was of view that any communication was not necessary. Hence, the aforesaid proposal was also accepted by the Chief Secretary in the Note No.44. In the aforesaid situation, the matter was ended at Note No.44. 21(a). Upon the basis of second letter, the noting started from Note No.49. The Section Officer again submitted the proposal for intimation to the CBI and a draft letter was also submitted by him for approval by the superior authorities in Note No.52. The aforesaid note was also approved by Under Secretary on 15.07.2024 in Note No.57 and by the Deputy Secretary in the Note No.58 dated 16.07.2024. It also appears from the Note No.67 to 71 that in the Note No.67 to 70, the summary of the case and the previous action was mentioned and in the Note No.71, the Chief Secretary submitted the file to the Chief Minister with the following noting:-
"Submitted for the Orders of the Hon'ble Chief Minister about informing the CBI about the decision taken by the then Chief Minister in para no.34."21
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
22. It appears that the previous C.M. already passed the order for issuing the information to the CBI. Therefore, it was not necessary to take the order for issuing the information to the CBI from the present C.M. But we unable to understand "why the file was again submitted for taking the order of only communicating the information regarding the decision taken by the previous C.M. in Note No. 34". The second letter of CBI was only a reminder of the first letter. Therefore, it was sufficient to issue a letter after the Note No.44 by the Chief Secretary, but they did not send any information to the CBI and the file was moved at various stages and thereafter again submitted before the present C.M. for seeking the order about informing the CBI. In Note No.72, the present C.M. passed the impugned order upon which the charge sheet has been issued in this case.
23. The counsel for respondents strongly argued the fact that Note No.34 was not the 'final-order'. It can be treated as a 'noting' only. The final order has been passed in the Note No.72 because after the aforesaid noting, the charge sheet has been issued. The aforesaid contention has been opposed by the applicant counsel. It is submitted by the applicant counsel that the notings clearly shows that the matter was ended. Previous Chief Minister applied his mind and passed a detailed order in 22 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE his own handwriting upon both files. After aforesaid order of The C.M., the Chief Secretary came to the conclusion that sending the information to CBI is not necessary to the CBI.
24. In view of this Court, because the CBI recommended the departmental action vide its letter dated 10.09.2021 (Annexure - R1), therefore, when the then C.M. passed the order, than information should have been given to the CBI. Because the information was not given, therefore, the CBI sent a reminder on 25.04.2024 (Annexure - R2). After receiving the Annexure - R2, only action was required to communicate the previous final decision taken in the Note No.34 by the then Chief Minister. But the file was again moved and submitted to the present Chief Minister for taking the permission to give the aforesaid information to the CBI, while the aforesaid permission was already contained in the order of previous Chief Minister.
25. Both parties submitted various case laws in support of their contention. Therefore, we may peruse the aforesaid case laws.
26. The respondents cited State of Karnataka and Another vs. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563 (dt: 22.03.2022) and draws attention towards paras 16, 17, 20 & 21. This case is related to the established law that in a disciplinary proceedings, a charge of 23 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE misconduct has to be established on a preponderance and probabilities. The rules of evidence which are applied to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from the proceedings in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction. In this case, the previous case, State of Haryana vs. Ratan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 also relied and para 4 of the aforesaid case has been quoted. No doubt, it is established law that criminal proceedings and the civil proceedings both may run concurrently. The department having the jurisdiction to initiate the departmental proceedings even after the acquittal from the criminal case. But in this regard there are some restrictions. The applicant also cited Maharana Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar and others 2025 SCC Online SC 890. In para 47 of the aforesaid case, the Court also says that:-
"47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well- established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan."24
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
27. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited Union of India and Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 (dt: 22.11.2006) and draws attention towards paras 13 to 16 which are quoted here:-
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge- sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet.25
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
28. The applicant also cited State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna & others (2001) 2 SCC 330. In para 33, the Court observed as under:-
"33. While it is true that justifiability of the charges at this stage of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot possibly be delved into by any court pending inquiry but it is equally well settled that in the event there is an element of malce or malafide, motive involved in the matter of issue of a charge-sheet or the concerned authority is so biased that the inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known then and in that event law courts are otherwise justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of a public official. It is not a question of shielding any misdeed that the Court would be anxious, it is the due process of law which should permeate in the society and in the event of there being any affectation of such process of law that law courts ought to rise up to the occasion and the High Court in the contextual facts has delved into the issue on that score. On the basis of the findings no exception can be taken and that has been the precise reason as to why this Court dealt with the issue in so great a detail so as to examine the judicial propriety at this stage of the proceedings. "
29. It appears from the aforesaid quoted both case laws that in ordinary case, the charge sheet cannot be challenged. But in the circumstances stated in the aforesaid cases, the charge sheet 26 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE can also be challenged. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the charge sheet upon the ground that previously, the competent authority decided to drop the proceedings and not initiate any departmental proceedings against the applicant. Therefore, the aforesaid final decision cannot be changed by the subsequent authority i.e. C.M. Without any sufficient ground the review cannot be made by the subsequent authority. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid ground it can be said that the petition filed by the applicant is tenable and no benefit can be given to the respondent upon the basis of Kunisetty Satyanarayana case (supra).
30. It is strongly argued by the respondents that the previous order Note No.34 was not the final order. That was only noting of the then Chief Minister. The order was not communicated, therefore, that will be treated only an interim noting of order sheet. Hence, the petitioner having no right to challenge the subsequent order passed by the new Chief Minister. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another AIR 1963 Supreme Court 395 = 1962 SCC Online SC 11. The aforesaid case has been decided by the Bench of 5 judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Upon the basis of aforesaid case, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the decision will be treated final when the result is 27 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE communicated in the shape of charge sheet. He also cited Sethi Auto Service Station and Another vs. Delhi Development Authority and others (2009) 1 SCC 180 and draws attention towards paras 14 to 17. It appears from the perusal of aforesaid paras that in para 15, the case of Bachhittar Singh (supra) has been relied and upon the basis of aforesaid case, it has been said that the opinion becomes a decision of the government only when it is communicated to the person concerned. Paras 14 and 16 may be referred as under:-
"14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision- making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned.
16. To the like effect are the observations of this Court in Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.4, wherein it was said that a right created under an order of a statutory authority must be communicated to the person concerned so as to confer an enforceable right."
31. It appears from the reading of Bachhittar Singh case (supra) that in the aforesaid case, the applicant was dismissed 28 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE from service. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Revenue Minister of the then State of PEPSU. An advance copy of the appeal was also submitted by the applicant to the Revenue Minister of PEPSU state. After perusal of the aforesaid appeal, the Revenue Minister wrote on the file that the charges against the applicant were serious and that they were proved. The Minister also observed that it was necessary to stop the evil with a strong hand. But he also expressed his opinion that as the appellant was a refugee and had a large family support, his dismissal would be too hard and that instead of dismissing him outright, he should have been reverted to his original post and warned for future. After the aforesaid remark, on the next date, the entire PEPSU State was merged in the State of Punjab and after merger the file was again put up before the Revenue Minister of Punjab on 14.12.1956 and the Minister mentioned his remark and sent the file for advice by Chief Minister. Thereafter, the Chief Minister passed the order and confirmed the dismissal then the order was communicated to the applicant. The applicant then preferred the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The 5 judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in paras 8 to 10 as under:-
"8. What we have now to consider is the effect of the note recorded by the Revenue Minister of PEPSU upon the file. We will assume for the purpose of this case that it is an order. Even so the question is whether 29 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE it can be regarded as the order of the State Government which alone, as admitted by the appellant, was competent to hear and decide an appeal from the order of the Revenue Secretary. Art. 166(1) of the Constitution requires that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed in the name of the Governor. Clause (2) of Art. 166 provides for the authentication of orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor. Clause (3) of that Article enables the Governor to make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government and for the allocation among the Ministers of the said business. What the appellant calls an order of the State Government is admittedly not expressed to be in the name of the Governor. But with that point we shall deal later. What we must first ascertain is whether the order of the Revenue Minister is an order of the State Government i.e., of the Governor. In this connection we may refer to r. 25 of the Rules of Business of the Government of PEPSU which reads thus:
"Except as otherwise provided by any other Rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Minister incharge who may by means of standing orders give such directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the Department. Copies of such standing orders shall be sent to the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister."
According to learned counsel for the appellant his appeal pertains to the department which was in charge of the Revenue Minister and, therefore, he could deal with it. His decision and order would according to him, be the decision and order of the State Government. On behalf of the State reliance was, however, placed on r. 34 which required certain classes of cases to be submitted to the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister before the issue of orders. But it was conceded during the course of the argument that a case of the kind before us does not fall within that rule. No other provision bearing on the point having been brought to our notice we would, therefore, hold that the Revenue 30 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Minister could make an order on behalf' of the State Government.
9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by cl. (1) of Art. 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. As along as the matter rested with him the Revenue Minister could well score out his remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh ones.
10. The business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. The constitution, therefore, requires and so did the Rules of Business framed by the Rajpramukh of PEPSU provide, that the action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh. It is not till this formality is observed that the action can be regarded as that of the State or here, by the Rajpramukh. We may further observe that, constitutionally speaking, the Minister is no more than an adviser and that the head of the State, the Governor or Rajpramukh,* is to act with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers. Therefore, until such advice is accepted by the Governor whatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers may say in regard to a particular matter does not become the action of the State until the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head of the State. Indeed, it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite a different opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of them can be regarded as the "order' of the State Government? 31
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Therefore to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it must be communicated to the person concerned. In this connection we may quote the following from the judgment of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh :
"Mr. Gopal Singh attempted to argue that before the final order was passed the Council of Ministers had decided to accept the respondent's representation and to reinstate him, and that, according to him, the respondent seeks to prove by calling the two original orders. We are unable to understand this argument. Even if the Council of Ministers had provisionally decided to reinstate the respondent that would not prevent the Council from reconsidering the matter and coming to a contrary conclusion later on, until a final decision is reached by them and is communicated to the Rajpramukh in the form of advice and acted upon by him by issuing an order in that behalf to the respondent."
Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character."
32. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the applicant also cited another 5 judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Chitralekha vs. State of Mysore 1964 SCC Online SC 88 = AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1823. Para 4 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant in which it has been said by the Bench of 5 judges:-
32
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "The next contention advanced is that Annexure IV was invalid as it did not conform to the requirements of Art. 166 of the Constitution. As the argument turns upon the for of the said annexure it will be convenient to read the material part thereof.
"Sir, Sub : Award of marks for the "interview" of the candidates seeking admission to Engineering Colleges and Technical Institutions.
With reference to your letter No. AAS.
4.ADW/63/2491, dated the 25th June, 1903, on the subject Mentioned above, I am directed to state that Government have decided that 25 % of the maximum marks ....
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
S. NARASAPPA, Under Secretary to Government, Education Department."
Ex facie this letter shows that it was a communication of the order issued by the Government under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, Education Department. Under Art., 166 of the Constitution an executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor, and that orders made in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such, manner as may be specified in rules to be made by be Governor and the validity of an order which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor.
If the conditions laid down in this Article are complied with, the order cannot be called in question on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor. It is con tended that as the order in question was not issued in the name of the Governor the order was void and no interviews could be held pursuant to that order. The law on the subject is well-settled. In Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. The State of Bombay (1) Das J., as he then was, observed:
33
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "Strict compliance with the requirements of article 166 gives an immunity to the order in that it cannot be challenged on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor. If, therefore, the requirements of that article are not complied with, the resulting immunity cannot be claimed by the State. This, however, does not vitiate the order itself .... Article 166 directs all execution action to be expressed and authenticated in the manner therein laid down but an omission to comply with those provisions does not render the executive action a nullity.
Therefore, all that the procedure established by law requires is that the appropriate Government must take a decision as to whether the detention order should be confirmed or not under section 11(1)."
The same view was reiterated by this Court in The State of Bombay v. Purshottam Jog Naik, where it was pointed out that though the order in question then was defective in form it was open to the State Government to prove by other means that such an order had been validly made. This view has been reaffirmed by this Court in subsequent decisions: see Ghaio Mall and Sons v. The State of Delhi (2), and it is, therefore, settled law that provisions of Art. 166 of the Constitution are only directory and not mandatory in character and, if they are not complied with, it can be established as a question of fact that the impugned order was issued in fact by the State Government or the Governor. The judgment of this Court in Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab does not help the appellants, because in that case the order signed by the Revenue Minister was not communicated to the party and, therefore, it was held that there was no effective order."
33. Therefore, it appears from the perusal of the aforesaid quoted case laws that whenever it is necessary to communicate 34 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the order in the name of Governor then the order becomes final when the orders issued in the name of Governor. In the case of Bachhittar Singh (supra), the punishment was given to the applicant and the Minister thought that the punishment should be changed from dismissal to lesser punishment. Therefore, that remark will be treated as an opinion or the noting of the Minister. In case of punishment, the order should be communicated in the name of the Governor. Therefore, the Court said that the order was not final and the order attained the finality when the new Minister put up a remark and after approval of Chief Minister, the order was duly communicated.
34. In the light of aforesaid settled position, if we examine the present case then it appears that the previous Chief Minister was competent to decide the question "whether the departmental proceedings should be initiated or not?". The Chief Minister passed the detailed orders in two files. The aforesaid order was passed after perusal of the copy of the charge sheet and the entire noting of the departmental officers who noted down from Note No.1 to Note No.33. The aforesaid proceedings were started upon the basis of the first letter sent by the CBI. Therefore, only information was required to be given to the CBI. But there was no any requirement to intimate the applicant in this regard. The applicant was not in the picture, because the proceedings were 35 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE proposed against the applicant. For example, if a criminal case is registered against any accused and after investigation the Police filed a closure report in the criminal court, then the Court is bound to issue a notice only to the complainant who lodged the FIR. There is no any requirement of law that at this stage the notice should be given to the accused also. The same principle will apply in the present scenario. The CBI wrote the Government for initiating the departmental enquiry and after examination of the matter; the Government took a decision in Note No.34 that the D.E. is not required. Hence, the aforesaid decision was the final decision of the final Competent Authority. The Chief Minister mentioned in the last line that "issue orders accordingly". Here, the meaning of "orders" was only to communicate the concerned investigating agency, who wrote the letter. In other words, the intention was only to give information to the CBI that the Government came to the conclusion that there is no necessity to initiate any departmental enquiry against the applicant. After the order of the C.M., the departmental officials applied their mind about the communication to the CBI and finally the Chief Secretary approved the noting that the communication is not necessary. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted that the order Note No.34 was not the final order and it was only departmental noting. 36
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
35. In support of the aforesaid situation, the applicant also filed another decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Another vs. Sunny Prakash and others (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 559. In para 19 of the aforesaid case, the Court clarified the position and said:-
"19. Mr. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents heavily relied on the principles laid down in State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 129. The said decision also arose from a dispute concerning the absorption of about 4000 employees working in teaching and non-teaching posts in 40 colleges affiliated to various Universities which were taken over as Constituent Colleges in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. It was contended on behalf of the State of Bihar that power to sanction additional posts and appointments against the same in the affiliated colleges is within the exclusive jurisdiction and power of the State under Section 35 of the Act. It was also contended that certain decisions of the Government that were taken after the change of elected Government had no prior approval of the Council of Ministers. The decision by the Cabinet, approval by the Chief Minister on behalf of the Cabinet is sine qua non for treating any resolution as a valid decision of the Government. It was also stated that in the absence of Cabinet approval, the order dated 01.02.1988 which was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar has no legal efficacy. It was further argued by the State that any valid order of the Government has to be formally expressed in the name of the Governor in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution. In para 64, this Court has held thus:
"64. So far as the order dated 18-12-1989 is concerned, the State being the author of that decision, 37 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE merely because it is formally not expressed in the name of the Governor in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution, the State itself cannot be allowed to resile or go back on that decision. Mere change of the elected Government does not justify dishonouring the decisions of previous elected Government. If at all the two decisions contained in the orders dated 1-2-1988 and 18-12-1989 were not acceptable to the newly elected Government, it was open to it to withdraw or rescind the same formally. In the absence of such withdrawal or rescission of the two orders dated 1-2- 1988 and 18- 12-1989, it is not open to the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand (which has been created after reorganisation of the State of Bihar) to contend that those decisions do not bind them."
From the above conclusion, it is clear that merely because of change of elected Government and the decision of the previous government not expressed in the name of Governor in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution, valid decision cannot be ignored and it is not open to the State to contend that those decisions do not bind them."
36. In the present case, it appears that in the impugned order at Note No.72, the present Chief Minister changed the decision of the previous Chief Minister at Note No.34 which was the final decision. No doubt, the authority also has the power to review but the aforesaid power is guided by some renowned principles of law. The review can be made but there should be some strong reasons behind the review. If the circumstances satisfy the genuineness of the order then the review cannot be made. If the authority comes to the conclusion that there was some mistake or some evidence was overlooked 38 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE then the review can be made. But in the order of review, reasons should be mentioned to satisfy the requirements.
37. In the case of Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation vs. Narasimha Reddy and others (2011) 9 SCC 286, the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in para 40 as under:-
"40. In the matter of Government of a State, the succeeding Government is duty bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job of the previous Government, for the reason that the action is that of the "State", within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, which continues to subsist and therefore, it is not required that the new Government can plead contrary from the State action taken by the previous Government in respect of a particular subject. The State, being a continuing body can be stopped from changing its stand in a given case, but where after holding enquiry it came to the conclusion that action was not in conformity with law, the doctrine of estoppel would not apply. Thus, unless the act done by the previous Government is found to be contrary to the statutory provisions, unreasonable or against policy, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power. "Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law". The Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interest and nepotism etc. as the principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play. The decision must be taken in good faith and must be legitimate. [Vide:
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, AIR (2003) 2 SC 673, State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation, (2006) 4 SCC 683 and State of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737.) "39
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
38. The aforesaid case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 35716/2013 (S-CAT) and in the light of aforesaid judgment, the Court said:-
"It is clear that the act done by petitioner is good faith based on the decision of the Government cannot be faulted with merely because the other political party has come into power. There being no modification or withdrawal of the Government order dated 23.06.2007 (Annexure - A8) the action initiated by the petitioner against the respondents is untenable."
39. In Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel [(2006) 8 SCC 200] this Court explained: (SCC p. 209, para 18) "18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. Though judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is 40 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE invoked, it is incumbent on the court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision."
40. For deciding the controversy involved in this case, the following part of para 15 of the State of Haryana and others vs. Roshan Lal Sharma 1968 SCC Online Punjab and Haryana is also relevant. It has been said that "dropping of certain charges" and "exoneration" are merely a verbal distinction. The second departmental enquiry on the same facts cannot be permissible. The Court said:-
". . . . . . . . . . The charge-sheet (Annexure A-3) and the statement of allegations (Annexure A-4) are in very great detail. The procedure was thus in strict accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules and there can, therefore, be no manner of doubt that the formal departmental enquiry against the respondent had commenced. The general principle is that once a departmental enquiry is over and a public servant has been exonerated, no second departmental enquiry on the same facts can be ordered unless there is a specific provisions for reviewing an order of exoneration in the Service Rules or any law. Dwarka Chand's case (supra). A distinction was sought to be made on behalf of the appellants between the "dropping of certain charges" and "exoneration" from those charges, but this is merely a verbal distinction, and the essence of the matter is, so far as Mr. Fletcher's order who was then Financial Commissioner, was concerned, the enquiry on the charges 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 was not to be proceeded with Mr. Bhagirath Dass maintained on the basis of the observations made in Raja Kishore Dass v. The State of Orissa (A. I. R. 1965 Orissa 183, at page
186) that an alteration or addition or amending of a 41 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE charge is merely a matter of procedure and so long as ample notice of such alteration or addition or amendment of a charge is merely a matter of procedure and so long as ample notice of such alternation or addition or amendment is given and adequate opportunities for defence are afforded to the delinquent officer, there will be no violation of the rules of equity.
The case before us is not, however, of any alternation or amendment or addition of the charge, but of the dropping of certain charges which would tantamount to exoneration from these charges. Mr. Bhagirath Dass then sought resort to Section 10 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 (Punjab Act 1 of 1898) according to which where power to issue notifications or make orders, rules or bye laws is conferred it includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any to add, amend, vary of rescind them. But what is said in this section is inapt for our purpose and more appropriate is the fundamental principle that unless the relevant rules so provide, the punishing authority has no power to review its own order."
41. Therefore, it is established that the review is also permissible but there should be strong grounds. In this case, the review has not been done within a reasonable period. The first order at Note No.34 was passed by the then Chief Minister on 09.05.2023 and the present order in Note No.72 has been passed after a long time of about 15 months probably on 06.05.2025. The order of previous Chief Minister was final but the order has been reviewed by so-called Note No.72. If we peruse the aforesaid order of present Chief Minister in Note No.72, then it appears that the previous recommendation of the CBI has 42 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE been quoted which was already considered by the previous Chief Minister and the present Chief Minister only wrote:-
" In view of the above recommendation, the decision to drop disciplinary action against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS has been reconsidered and disciplinary action be initiated _ _ _ _ _ _."
Except the aforesaid sentence, no reason has been assigned in the entire order. Why the Chief Minister disagreed with the order of previous Chief Minister, it is not mentioned in the entire order. Therefore, prima facie it can be said that any sufficient ground to review the previous order has not been mentioned.
42. In the case of Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation (supra), it is clearly stated that the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power and the political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law.
43. Therefore, after detailed discussion about the facts and circumstances of the case, we can summarize as under:-
a) The order Note No.34 passed by the previous Chief Minister was the final order in which the decision was taken about the non-initiation of the departmental enquiry against the applicant.43
OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
b) The aforesaid decision was taken by the Chief Minister upon the basis of first letter submitted by the CBI.
c) The Criminal Court at the first instance issued the direction for further investigation by the CBI. But the CBI after further investigation again filed the final closure report No. 11/2023 which was duly accepted by the competent criminal Court.
d) After filing the second closure report, the CBI only sent a reminder to the Government to enquire about the decision taken upon the first letter. Any fresh recommendation upon the basis of any new fact was not made by the CBI. Therefore, the duty of the Government was only to inform the CBI about the decision of Note No.34 taken by the then Chief Minister.
e) After the final order of previous Chief Minister, the file was moved between the departmental officers and finally the Chief Secretary came to the conclusion that the intimation to the CBI is not necessary. There was no any requirement to give any information or the intimation to the applicant.
f) After a long time without any sufficient reasons and without assigning any detailed facts or reasons, the present authority gave the direction to issue the charge sheet and the charge sheet was issued.
g) If any order is required to be issued in the name of Governor, then the concerned order will treated as final after 44 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE only after issuing the order "in the name of Governor", and before issuing the aforesaid order any noting in the file is only a noting, which cannot be considered for any other purpose. But when there is no any requirement to issue any order in the name of Governor then the order on the note sheet also becomes the final order. In the present case, the order of the previous Chief Minister was final.
h) No doubt, the subsequent Chief Minister has the power to review but in the present order, any reason for reviewing the previous order has not been mentioned. The aforesaid order has been passed after a long time when the file was pending in the C.M. Office. After passing the first order, the second order has been issued after a long delay without mentioning any reason about the delay in review or about changing the previous order.
i) It is an admitted fact that the name of applicant for the purpose of promotion was approved in the DPC for the post of 2024 but the posting was not given because the post was not available. Again his name has been approved for the post of year 2025. Only posting order is awaited and the name of applicant is at Serial No.1. The applicant alleged that, to debar from the promotional order, the charge sheet has been issued in arbitrary manner without any substance. The allegation of the applicant having some force because the file was submitted by the Chief Secretary only for permission to issue the information to the CBI 45 OA.No.170/00240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE about the decision taken upon the recommendation of the CBI but the file remained pending for about 10 months and all of a sudden without any proposal of any lower rank officer, the present competent authority passed the order for issuing the charge sheet and in the order any reason has not been assigned.
44. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid all circumstances, in view of this Court, the charge sheet has been issued without any sufficient reason and the Government was bound by the decision taken by the previous Chief Minister regarding the non-issuance of the charge sheet etc. and for dropping the entire proceedings.
45. Hence, the OA is allowed and the notice dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure - A1) issued under Rule 8(4) of "All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969" is hereby quashed along with the charge sheet dated 09.05.2025.
46. If any MA(s) is pending, that shall be treated as disposed of.
47. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
1 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00240/2025 ORDER RESERVED : 13.08.2025 DATE OF ORDER : 04.09.2025 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI SHRIVASTAVA ...MEMBER(J) HON'BLE MR.SANTOSH MEHRA ...MEMBER(A) Shri Alok Kumar, IPS(KN-1994), Son of Late Muralidhar Thakur, Aged about 56 years, ADGP, Training, Carlton House, CID Office, Palace Road, Bengaluru-560001. ....Applicant (By Shri Dhyan Chinnappa, Senior Advocate along with Advocate Shri Pradyumna L.N. - through video conference) Vs.
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560001.
2. Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DPAR), Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha,Bengaluru-560001.
Represented by Under Secretary DPAR(Service-4). ....Respondents (By Shri Reuben Jacob, AAG along with Advocate, Shri M.Rajakumar) 2 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE ORDER PER: HON'BLE SHRI SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A) I have gone through the pre-delivery Order in OA No.240/2025 circulated to me by Hon'ble Shri Justice B.K.Shrivastava, Member (J). I am in general agreement with the narration of the facts and circumstances in this pre-delivery order. However, I am in respectful disagreement with the conclusions drawn, particularly in Para nos.17, 18, 19, 24, 34, 41, 43 (f & h) and final decision given in para 44 and 45 by my learned and senior colleague Hon'ble Shri Justice B.K.Shrivastava. Hence, other than the disagreements that I am highlighting in the following paras, the remaining pages of this pre-delivery order can be construed to be part of my Order also and the same is not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.
2. I have meticulously gone through all the documents and records submitted by the learned Counsels for the applicant and respondents. I have also carefully heard the arguments and averments of the learned Counsels for both the parties.
3 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. My arguments and conclusions that I have drawn, which are at variance with those of Hon'ble Member(J), Shri Justice B.K.Shrivastava, are delineated, with reasons in the paras below. The fundamental aspects on which I have respectful disagreement with my highly esteemed and senior colleague Hon'ble Justice B.K Shrivastava, Member(J) are as follows:
1. Unlike the assessment of the Hon'ble Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member(J), that the decision of the previous Competent Authority was well considered and was taken after taking due cognizance of the report and recommendations of the CBI and inputs provided by the different echelons of DPAR/Home Department, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the former Competent Authority as given on Para-34 of Page 31of DPAR 161 SPS 2021 (P) of DPAR file (page 302 of OA file) and in Para 80 on Pages 79/80 of the connected Home Department file No.C137312 e-HD 33 COD 2019, (Pages 350/351 of OA file) was in utter disregard and totally in contradiction with the recommendations of the CBI and also at variance with the endorsements of the same by the departmental officials, right from the Section Officer to the Chief Secretary. Furthermore, the decision
4 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE of the previous Competent Authority was not at all based on any grounds or logic or reasoning. It is manifestly arbitrary, and the relevant paras do not indicate any rationale or logic that was factored in decision making by the previous Competent Authority. To reiterate, the decision of the previous Competent Authority, not to initiate disciplinary proceedings, was not at all in consonance with, and was in fact, in total contradiction to both:
a. The specific recommendations for RDA by the CBI and also b. The endorsements and recommendations at various levels of the Government of Karnataka, right from the Section Officer to the Chief Secretary.
2. The second important point of difference or disagreement with my learned senior colleague on the Division Bench is with respect to the decision of the subsequent Competent Authority, who has ordered the disciplinary proceedings on Para-72 on Pages 38/39 of DPAR 161 SPS 2021 (P) which is at Pages 309 and 310 of OA. In my considered view, the revised decision is based on the existing evidence, in the form of the recommendation of the RDA by CBI and the endorsement of the same by the different echelons in Government
5 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE of Karnataka, which was totally ignored by the previous Competent Authority.
4. In this regard, it is pertinent to have a relook at certain documents, records, and relevant portions of the judgments that have been cited. This is being reiterated as follows for balance of convenience:
1. Let us first examine the Charge Memo which is issued to the applicant, which states as follows:
"From The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-01.
To Sri Alok Kumar, IPS, ADGP, Training, Carlton House, CID Office, Palace Road, Bengaluru-01.
Sir, NOTICE UNDER RULE 8(4) OF ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE & APPEALS) RULES, 1969 ****** It is proposed to hold an enquiry against you, Sri.Alok Kumar, IPS (KN-1994) under the provisions of Rule 8(4) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The substance of the imputations of misconduct and definite and distinct article of charge, a statement of imputations of misconduct in support of article of charge, a list of documents by which and 6 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE a list of witnesses by whom the article of charge is proposed to be sustained are enclosed as Annexure-I to IV respectively.
....................................................................................... .....................................................................
Annexure - I You, Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS, (KN: 1994) Additional Director General of Police, Training worked as IGP and Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime, Bengaluru City and Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City between 21.09.2018 to 02.08.2019. During the said period you have also supervised the investigation of crime no: 157/2018 of Wilson garden police station. During this period there is an allegation against you about illegal / unauthorized/Unwanted interceptions/ leak of interceptions of telephones of political leaders belonging to the ruling party and opposition parties as well as their associates, relatives and also the Government servants. Thereby misused your official power, exhibited gross misconduct, negligence, irresponsibility and dereliction of duty and violated All India Service (Conduct) Rules 1968.
The CBI had registered the case in RC 2172019A0006/ACU- V/AC-II/ CBI /New Delhi, dated: 30.08.2019 u/s 72 of Information Technology Act 2000 and 26 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 as per FIR No: 6963/2019 of Cyber Crime Police Station and based on the Notification No: 228/22/2019 AVD.II, dated: 30.08.2019 by 7 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Government of India u/s 5 r/w Section 6 of DSPE Act 1946 which was issued on the basis of order no: E-HD 33 COD 2019, dated: 19.08.2019 and to corrigendum dated: 23.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 respectively, for conducting detailed investigation into the following allegations in crime no: 6963/2019 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City.
i. Investigation of Crime No: 6963/2019 lodged at Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City, u/s 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 26 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 by CBI.
ii. Enquiry and investigation by CBI into all illegal/ unauthorized/unwanted interceptions of telephones of political leaders belonging to the ruling party and opposition parties as well as their associates, relatives and also of the government servants from 01.08.2018 till the date of this order. iii. Identification and investigation by Central Bureau of investigation, of person(s) involved in connection with alleged illegal/ unauthorized/unwanted telephone interception of several ruling and opposition political leaders, their relatives and other government officials.
The CBI after completing the investigation vis-à-vis, the allegations mentioned at Sl. No. i) have submitted the report to the Government about the allegations regarding the unauthorized disclosure/ publication of content of conversation of legal interception. Hence the following charges:
8 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Charge No. 1 That you, Sri.Alok Kumar, ADGP the then Commissioner of Police, also supervising the investigation in crime no: 157/2018 of Wilson garden police state have not obtained legal permission for tapping/interception of telephone voice calls and have not followed the standard operating procedures (SOP). Thereby violated rule 3(1), 3(2B) (vii), 3(3)(iii) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968.
Charge No.2 That you, Sri Alok Kumar, ADGP the then Commissioner of Police, obtained Legal Interception (LI) of Voice calls from Sri. Mirza Ali Raza, Inspector of TSC (Technical Support Center), BCP over the whatsapp from his mobile phone on 02.08.2019 and also obtained the Ll in a pen drive, even though it was not connected to the Crime No.157/2018 of Wilson Garden Police Station. Thereby, you have misused your official position. Thereby violated rule 3(1), 3(2B) (vii) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968.
Charge No.3 That you, Sri. Alok Kumar, ADGP the then Commissioner of Police, obtained Legal Interception (LI) of Voice calls from Sri. Mirza Ali Raza, Inspector of TSC (Technical Support Center), BCP over the whatsapp from his mobile phone on 02.08.2019 and also obtained the LI in a pen drive, which is violation of standard operating procedures dealing with interception, handling, use, 9 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE sharing, copying, storage and destruction of messages/telephones/emails etc. Further you have also instructed Sri. Mirza Ali Raza to delete whatsapp data and to format both of his mobile phones (9972833003 and 9480801541) used for conversation and transfer of data. Whereby you have misused your official position and violated the standard operating procedures (SOP) and thereby violated rule 3(1), 3(2B) (vii)(x)(xii) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968.
Charge No.4 That you, Sri. Alok Kumar, ADGP the then Commissioner of Police, after having the secured voice call interceptions on whatsapp in your mobile phone and on pen drive, failed to keep it securely. The Leaked audio files match with the call id of the LI voice calls in the pen drive and the laptop of the Technical Support entre (TSC) which indicate the origin of both audio files are from TSC. Thereby you have violated rule 3(1), 3(2B) (vii) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968.
Charge No.5 That you, Sri. Alok Kumar, ADGP the then Commissioner of Police, while posted and functioning as ADGP, KSRP unauthorizedly gave interview to News 18 Kannada on 04.08.2019 in which you have criticized the policies/action of the Government thereby committed gross misconduct.
Thereby, you have violated Rule 6, 7 & 9 of All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
10 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Annexure-II Statement of Imputation of Misconduct in support of article of charge framed against Sri. Alok Kumar (IPS: 1994), Karnataka. Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, Training worked as IGP and Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime, Bengaluru City and Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City between 21.09.2018 to 02.08.2019. During the said period Sri. Alok Kumar, has also supervised the investigation of crime no:
157/2018 of Wilson garden police station.
On 08.08.2019 a Kannada television channel by name News18 Kannada telecasted a telephonic conversation between two persons, which said to be between Sri. Bhaskar Rao the then Commissioner of Police and one Faraz Ahmed. In this regard, a complaint was registered in cyber crime police station, Bengaluru u/s 72 of Information Technology Act and Sec 26 of Indian Telegraph act under crime no: 6963/2019.
The CBI had registered the case in RC 2172019A0006/ACU- V/AC-II/ CBI /New Delhi, dated: 30.08.2019 u/s 72 of Information Technology Act 2000 and 26 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 as per FIR No: 6963/2019 of Cyber Crime Police Station and based on the Notification No: 228/22/2019 AVD.II, dated: 30.08.2019 by Government of India u/s 5 r/w Section 6 of DSPE Act 1946 which was issued on the basis of order no: E-HD 33 COD 2019, dated:
19.08.2019 and to corrigendum dated: 23.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 respectively, for conducting detailed investigation into the
11 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE following allegations in crime no: 6963/2019 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City.
During the investigation of crime no: 6963/2019 the CBI conducted search at technical support centre and seized relevant material and documents. The crime no: 157/2018 was pending with Wilson garden police station and later was transferred to Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru City. Further it was transpired during the investigation that the leaked audio calls files contain conversation between Sri. Bhaskar Rao, the then ADG, KSRP and Sri. Faraz Ahmed. Sri. Bhaskar Rao has been talking with Sri. Faraz Ahmed regarding considering him for the post of commissioner of Police, Bengaluru instead of Sri. Alok Kumar and he was asking Sri. Faraz Ahmed to push his case with political leaders in Delhi. Sri. B R Yathiraj, PI had listened to these calls on 05.05.2019 and identified the voice of Sri. Bhaskar Rao. The investigation report also reveals that, there are no documents/files available for having taken the approval for legal interception of the telephone calls as per para e(iii) of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which states as under:
"(iii) The request for interception and monitoring shall be made by the Head of the authorized security and Law Enforcement Agency, or in his absence by the senior most officer present in the headquarters, or by the designated officer, giving justification in accordance with section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or section 69 of the
12 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 and as per the enclosed proforma A (new case) and B (renewal)." The investigation reveals that, on 02.08.2019 Sri. Alok Kumar, the then Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru asked Sri. Mirza Ali Raza Inspector of technical support centre (TSC) to bring the calls pertaining to one Faraz Ahmed and available important calls of crime no: 157/2018 of Wilson garden police station in a pen drive and also requested Mirza, PI to send the LI voice call of Faraz Ahmed and Sri. Bhaskar Rao on whatsapp number even though it was not connected with the crime no: 157/2018 of Wilson Garden Police Station without following standard operating procedures for interception, handling, use, sharing, copying, storage and destruction of messages/telephones/ email etc as prescribed in para e(ii) of Standard Operating Procedure which reads as under:
"(ii) Directions for interception and monitoring of any message or class of messages, or any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be issued by the Competent Authority, In unavoidable circumstances, such order may be made by an officer in the centre and the states, not below this rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent, who has been duly authorized by the Competent Authority."
The investigation report reveals that, Sri. Alok Kumar, the then Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru was in possession of the said audio conversation. This has been established through the 13 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE circumstances and statements of Sri. Mirza Ali Raza, PI, TSC, Anand Kumar, HC, TSC, Venu GopaL, DSP, Ms. S Kushala of News18 Kannada, Yathiraj, PI.
The investigation report reveals that, the experts have opined that the Hash value of the audio files available with Ms. S Kushala of News 18 Kannada and the Hash Value of the audio files available with the TSC are same, which establishes the origin of the audio files with Ms. S Kushala is from TSC Pertinently these LI files were in possession with Sri. Alok Kumar on 02.08.2019, through whatsapp from Sri. Mirza Ali Raza. This act of getting the possession of legal intercepts on whatsapp and on a pen drive are clear violation of SOP dealing with interception, handling, use, sharing, copying storage and destruction of messages/telephones/ emails etc. And Rules 628 to 634 of Police Manual by Karnataka State Police which concerns with top secret, secret and confidential correspondence.
The report also reveals that, prior to 02.08.2019 the LI calls pertaining to crime no: 157/2018 PS Wilson Garden were not exported by any of the staff of TSC These calls were shared with Sri. Alok Kumar on 02.08.2019 on his whatsapp number.
On 04.08.2019 Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS was interviewed by Manju Nath, a reporter from News 18 Kannada which was arranged by Ms. S Kushala in which the officer had discussed service related 14 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE matters with media and criticize the action and the policies of the Government.
Investigation revealed that, Sri. Alok Kumar, the then Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru have also instructed Mirza Ali Raza, Pl to delete the whatsapp data and format his personal mobile phone and also mobile of technical centre. Further, he instructed him to guide Sri. Anand Kumar, HC not to reveal anything to CBI regarding transfer of Audio files to him over Whatsapp on 02.08.2019.
The CBI after completing the investigation has submitted the report to the Government about the allegations regarding the unauthorized disclosure/publication of content of conversation of legal interception.
It is concluded in the investigation report that, Sri. Alok Kumar the then Commissioner of Police was in possession of LI voice calls from TSC through Mirza Ali Raza on 02.08.2019 when he met Ms. S Kushala on 04.08.2019. The report reveals that, experts have opined that all these audio files found in pen drive, lap top and the leaked ones have the same hash value and thereby establishes their origin from TSC only."
5. It is seen that Annexure III of the Charge Memo mentioned above cites 18 Prosecution documents & Annexure-IV cites 18 15 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE prosecution witnesses. It is totally based on the report of the CBI which is enclosed from page number 30 to page number 149, of the OA. It is pertinent to mention that as seen on Note 1 on page 177 of Annexure A3 (the reply received under RTI by the applicant), it was the Government of Karnataka which had transferred this case which was earlier registered at CYBER CRIME Police Station of Bangalore vide Crime No.6963/2019 to the CBI by Government Order No.E-HD 33 COD 2019 dated 19.08.2019. The CBI has registered the said case vide FIR No.CBI/ACU(V) 2172019A0006, dated 30.08.2019 and has initiated an investigation on the specific direction of the Government of Karnataka. It is crystal clear from the enclosed CBI report of around 120 pages and the related Annexures that after detailed investigation by CBI, which included searches of certain premises, seizure of incriminating material during these searches, the subsequent examination of seized material, including by expert FSL Labs, examination of large number of witnesses and intensive scrutiny of documents, including electronic devices etc., CBI recommended disciplinary proceedings against the MoS on certain counts, each one of them being of very serious nature. Perusal of the CBI report also indicates that the applicant was also examined during the course of investigation. The explanation given by the applicant in his 16 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE defence to the Investigation Officer (IO) DSP , CBI Sri Mukesh Kumar and its rebuttal by the IO are also matter of record and are part of the detailed report of CBI. CBI has given its recommendation after detailed and meticulous investigation. The incriminating material against the applicant includes statements of several subordinate police personal who worked under him in the Technical Support System, the irrefutable electronic evidence related to the interceptions, copying of telephonic conversations to pen drives and laptops etc. Departmental inquiry has been recommended by the CBI on the basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, it is clear that CBI has done a thorough professional job and also followed the Principles of Natural Justice by giving an opportunity to the applicant to submit his explanation and also by giving it due consideration during the course of investigation.
6. It is also very clear from above that the Disciplinary Proceedings have been initiated by the Government, not Suo moto, but on the basis of specific recommendations of CBI, which is the premier investigative agency of the Government of India.
7. CBI , based on its detailed investigation in the case registered vide Case No.RC 2172019A0006-CBI/ACU-V/AC-II/CBI/New Delhi, 17 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE came to a conclusion that RDA should be against Shri Bhaskar Rao IPS & and the applicant. This specific recommendation was conveyed to the Government of Karnataka vide Annexure R1, (one Page 233 of the OA) vide letter No.2124/3/RC2172019A0006/ ACU-V/AC-II/CBI/New Delhi dated 10.09.2021, with which CBI report No.05/2021 dated 10.09.2021 (Page 40 of the OA) the same is reproduced here for easy reference:
"11. Final recommendations:
11(i) In view of the facts & circumstances discussed above and based on the preponderance of probabilities, the Competent Authority in CBI has recommended the RDA for Major Penalty against Sh. Alok Kumar, the then Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and Sh. Bhaskar Rao the then ADGP, KSRP.
11(ii) RDA:
RDA for Major Penalty against Sh. Alok Kumar (IPS 1994), Karnataka:
a) For the violations of the SOP, [Conveyed to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, vide DO HD/424/PRS/INTER/2011, dated 17.06.2011 pertaining to dealing with interception, handling, use, sharing, copying, storage and destruction of messages/ telephones/ emails etc.] and Rules-628 to 634 of Police Manual by Karnataka State Police which concerns with Top Secret, Secret and Confidential Correspondence.
18 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(b) For the violation of Rules 6, 7 and 9 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
RDA for Major Penalty against Sh. Bhaskar Rao (IPS 1990), Karnataka:
(a) Under Rule 18 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
11(iii) To be referred to the Ministry/Department for such action as may be considered appropriate:
Nil 11 (iv) To be closed and dropped for lack of proof:
Nil 11 (v) Taking action against the complainant for making false and malicious allegations:
Nil"
8. CBI also sent a reminder to the Government of Karnataka asking for the action taken on its recommendation vide letter dated 25.06.2024.
In this regard, the Counsel for respondents has rightly pointed out that the B report filed by the CBI was not challenged by any of the parties including the applicant at the time of its submission in the Hon'ble CBI Special Court i.e., on 13.02.2024. In its report, the CBI while recommending the closure of the criminal case, has also stated that departmental proceedings should be initiated against the applicant and 19 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE another MoS Shri Bhaskar Rao. It is indeed ironical that these recommendations were not challenged by the applicant at that point of time, but when the Government has chosen to act upon them now, they are being challenged now. Hence, the contention of the Counsel for applicant that initiation of the Disciplinary Proceedings is malafide, is not tenable.
9. It is pertinent now to examine the judgments that have been cited regarding initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against the applicant. The Counsel for respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764, has held that:
" .............the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case will not ipso facto absolve him from the liability arising under the disciplinary jurisdiction as per service rules. In our opinion, the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case does not preclude the disciplinary authority from holding a disciplinary inquiry against him, on the same charge made against him, in the criminal case."
10. Regarding the delay, the Counsel for respondents has also drawn our attention to the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Cooperation of 20 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE India and others vs. Masilamani reported in AIRONLINE 2012 SC 426. The relevant portions are as follows:
10. ................ The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that, the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by court. ........."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, has made the following observations. The relevant para is extracted as under:
"14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge- sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry
21 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance."
12. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"8. The Law does not permit quashing of chargesheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the chargesheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. ........................."
9...........
10..........
11...........
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the 22 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
13. The Counsel for respondents has pointed out that the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules stipulates certain limits for various stages of disciplinary proceedings for expeditious disposal and these time limits are applicable only after the issuance of Article of charges i.e., the day deemed to be from which the disciplinary enquiry initiated. Therefore, the reliance of the petitioner on the circulars at Annexure A5 and A6 is not maintainable. Justifying the decision of the disciplinary authority, the Counsel points out that the Charges against the applicant are very serious in nature and Disciplinary Authority has done the correct thing by initiating action to bring the issue to a logical and proper closure.
14. The Disciplinary Authority reviewed the charges on the petitioner and on Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS and ordered to hold a proper 23 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE disciplinary inquiry against both the officers and put to logical end to the charges levelled against them. Therefore, department inquiry is initiated against the petitioner to examine the veracity of the charges and a show cause notice along with the Article of charges dated 09.05.2025 came to be issued to the applicant. However, since more than 5 years have been lapsed since the incident happened in 2019 and also since Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS has already retired from service in 2022, the Government is examining the possibility of initiating departmental action against him under the extant Rules.
15. For balance of convenience, it is pertinent to examine the file notings, which were put up to the previous Competent Authority after receipt of the CBI report and its recommendations. They are put up ad verbatim as follows:
"Subject: Regarding disciplinary action against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS, former Commissioner of Police, Bangalore ad Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS, former ADOR Subject: Regarding disciplinary action against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS, form KSRP (retired).
DPAR 161 SPS 2021(P)
18. pre paras may be perused.
The Home Department was requested to give its opinion regarding the departmental enquiry against Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS and Shri 24 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Alok Kumar, IPS in the telephone tapping case. In this regard the Home Department has requested to provide all the documents along with the investigation report submitted by CBI in its unofficial note dated: 04.10.2021. The investigation report and documents related to the said case may be provided to the Home Department. For orders.
Sd/-5/10/21 Under Secretary to the Government, DPAR (Services-4)
19) Deputy Secretary, DPAR (Services):- may be approved.
Sd/-8/10 Deputy Secretary DPAR (Services)
20) Secretary, DPAR:-
Isn't there another file where based on the explanation of the officer, we have sought decision of Hon'ble CM? Is this file necessary now?
Sd/-12/10 Secretary, DPAR
21) Sd/-12/10 Deputy Secretary DPAR (Services Sd/-12/10 Under Secretary to the Government, DPAR (Services-4) 25 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Sd/-12/10 Section officer, DPAR (Services-H)
22) In connection with the case of telephone tapping and leaking of the audio recording of the telephone conversation to the media, the CBI has been entrusted with the investigation in the vide order No: E-HD 33 COD 2019, dated: 19.08.2019, and the terms of reference of investigation are as below:
i) Investigation of Crime No: 6963/2019 lodged at Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City, u/s 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 26 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 by CBI.
ii) Enquiry and investigation by CBI into all illegal/ unauthorized/unwanted interceptions of telephones of political leaders belonging to the ruling party and opposition parties as well as their associates, relatives and also of the government servants from 01.08.2018 till the date of this order.
iii) Identification and investigation by Central Bureau of investigation, of person(s) involved in connection with alleged illegal/unauthorized/unwanted telephone interception of several ruling and opposition political leaders, their relatives and other government officials.
23) The CBI has registered the case under no: RC 2172019A0006/CBI/ New Delhi, completed the investigation and 26 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE submitted a report to the Government vide letter dated 10.09.2021, which can be perused at page 18-1. As stated by the CBI report at page 14 of the said report of the investigation is limited only to point (i) mentioned above.
24) This report is about only on the leakage of the Legal Intercepts which were recorded in Technical Support Center with regard to Wilson Garden Police Station Crime No: 157/2018 to media and recommended departmental inquiry against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS for violation of All India Services (Conduct) Rules 6, 7 & 9 for allegedly leaking these audio recordings to the media.
25) And the leaked audio recording is a transcript of a conversation between Mr. Bhaskar Rao, IPS and Mr. Faraj Ahmed, in which Mr. Bhaskar Rao, IPS lobbing for the post of Bangalore City Police Commissioner and the CBI has recommended for a departmental inquiry against Sri. Bhaskar Rao, IPS for violation of All India Services (Conduct) Rule 18.
26) The file has already been submitted to the superiors along with the clarifications submitted by Sri. Bhaskar Rao, IPS seeking for orders on further action.
27) Elsewhere, Mr. Alok Kumar, IPS, immediately after his transfer from the post of Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, on 02.08.2019 has collected the LI of Mr. Bhaskar Rao and Mr. Faraj Ahmed, on a pendrive through Mr. Mirza Ali Raja, Inspector of Police, TSC. Also, the said voice tape has been fetched 27 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE through the whatsapp of Mr. Mirza Ali Raja, Inspector of Police, TSC Mrs. Kushala has informed Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS in her e- mail message dated 05.08.2019 at 11:57 PM that she has the said voice print. Later on Date 06.08.2019 this audio recording was telecasted on News 18 Kannada channel. Earlier, on 04.08.2019. Shri Alok Kumar. IPS gave an interview to the same channel, in which he discussed the government's action (regarding transfers).
28) The expert report reveals that the "Hash value" of the said voice recording available at the TSC Center and the "Hash value" of the voice recording available with Mrs. Kushal of TV Media are the same and also in his statement Mr. Mirza Ali Raja of TSC Center has stated that he had been instructed by him to send the said voice recording to him through Pen drive and WhatsApp. Also he has also stated in his statement that Mr. Alok Kumar, IPS had instructed him to delete it from the mobile used for this and format the mobile and to tell anyone that he did not know anything about this. From the evidence and documents available the CBI report has confirmed that Mr. Alok Kumar IPS had obtained secret and top secret documents from his Legal Interception & Technical Support Center without any prior permission. Since the prima facie case made by the CBI, a show cause notice under rule 8(4) of has been issued to the said officer under Rule 8(4) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules to subject him to departmental enquiry and a charge sheet has been issued seeking the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister for its execution. The draft charge sheet and notice have been placed on file.
28 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Sd/-02/2/22 Section officer, DPAR (Services-H) Para 29
29) preparas from 22 may be perused. As instructed in para 20, the clarifications from Sri. Bhaskar Rao, IPS on the allegations leveled against him the CBI report have been obtained (para 26) and submitted for further orders on 20.12.2021.
30) In the present case, in relation to the allegations against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS as explained in paragraphs 27 and 28, as per the said CBI report, the allegations against the officer have been substantiated, as per paragraph 28 "A", a show cause notice under Rule 8(4) of the All India Services (Discipline Appeal) Rules for initiating departmental enquiry the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister may be sought for issuing the charge sheet. The draft charge sheet and the notice are placed on file.
Sd/-25/02/2022 Under Secretary to the Government, DPAR (Services-4)
31) Deputy Secretary, DPAR (Services) Orders can be sought from Hon'ble CM for initiating D.E. against Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS by issuing the Articles of charges in page 34- 23 Under Rule 8 of AIS (D&A) Rules.
29 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Sd/-25/02/22 Deputy Secretary DPAR (Services)
32) Secretary, DPAR:- may be approved Sd/-25/02 Secretary, DPAR
33) Chief Secretary:-
May please see pre-paras based on the enquiry/ investigation of CBI and the report disciplinary enquiry is proposed against Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS.
For approval to initiate DE and issue article of charges.
Sd/-
P.Ravi Kumar, IAS Chief Secretary
16. It appears from the above notings that all officers in DPAR, which include the Section Officer (who enclosed the draft charge sheet also), to the Under Secretary, then the Deputy Secretary, then the Secretary, DPAR and finally the Chief Secretary, have recommended initiation of Disciplinary Inquiry and issue of Article of Charges to the applicant. However the Competent Authority, at para 34 has stated as follows :
30 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "34) Hon'ble CM Based on the representation submitted by Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS dated: 26.03.2023 (enclosed), I have passed detailed orders in connected file C.No. 137312 e-HD 33 COD 2019. My orders in the connected file also holds good in this case also exonerating Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS, hence there is no need to conduct disciplinary enquiry against Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS issue orders accordingly.
Sd/-
Basavaraj Bommai Chief Minister"
17. The relevant paras/notings of the Competent Authority referred to by him for detailed orders in connected file C.No. 137312 e-HD 33 COD 2019 are as follows:
"Subject: Handing over telephone tanning cases to CBI and regarding.
HD 33 COD 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------
80) Hon'ble Chief Minister) Shri. Alok Kumar, IPS met me personally And submitted a representation dt. 26/3/2023 (Enclosed) in which he has submitted that:
(i) CBI has submitted 'B' report to CBI Special court in which the CBI has enquired from every possible angle the
31 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE possibility of Ms Kushal (News 18) getting the Audio clip and has finally come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove that who leaked the video.
(ii) Secondly Hon'ble High Court has accepted CBI submission that no evidence could be found regarding leaked video.
(iii) Shri Alok Kumar has also submitted that he never criticised the government Or the policies of the government in Media or otherwise.
(iv) He has also submitted that Joint CP Crime is the Nodal Officer regarding legal interception of Telephonic calls.
(v) Shri.Alok Kumar has also submitted that the protocols regarding secret, Top secret as mentioned in Police Manual, were followed by him and CBI has not found any illegality in any of the Interception orders.
I have perused the entire file and I am satisfied with the Explanation given by Shri. Alok Kumar, IPS and accordingly hereby order. There is no need for either further Enquiry or Disciplinary Enquiry and hence the file is closed. Issue order Accordingly.
Sd/-
BasavarajaBommai Chief Minister"
32 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Subsequently, Para-40 of DPAR states or summarises the entire sequence of events, as follows:
"40) The CBI has completed its investigation in the telephone tapping case has recommended departmental disciplinary action, but the competent authority has not accepted the said recommendation. Since the charge she has not been issued, there is no need to issue an order to close the case. Submitted for perusal and orders."
18. It is evident from the paras above that despite the specific recommendations of the CBI which were also fully endorsed by different levels in the Government, the Competent Authority had chosen to give orders which were totally in contradiction to the recommendations of the CBI and the endorsements at different levels as indicated above. It is also abundantly clear that no grounds or reasons have been mentioned by the Competent Authority for disagreement with the recommendations of the CBI and the endorsements at different levels. In these remarks, there is absolutely no reference to the detailed investigation carried out by the CBI and its recommendations. The representation of the applicant to the Competent Authority has simply been accepted by him on face value without any cross verification/analysis/ comparison with the findings and 33 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE conclusions of the CBI report. This is an error Apparent on the Face of Record. It is an obvious procedural error, an error of astronomical proportions that totally vitiates the fairness of the proceedings. Hence, even if we accept the contention of the Counsel for applicant that the enquiry had been closed , the reopening is definitely justified, in view of the total arbitrariness of the decision of the Competent Authority.
19. I t is indeed ironical that the very Competent Authority who had earlier ordered the CBI enquiry, has chosen to completely ignore its detailed and comprehensive report and recommendations. As seen from the above notings, no justification or reasons or grounds are given by the Competent Authority for choosing to ignore or discount the CBI report and the endorsements of different officers including that of the Chief Secretary and for giving orders for closure of the file.
20. It is also pertinent to refer to certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding importance of giving grounds or reasons in decision making. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and several High Courts have consistently held that every order or decision of a Government entity should be backed by sound logic and reasoning and 34 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE should not be arbitrary. In this regard, for ease of convenience, relevant portions of certain judgments are cited as below:-
Writ C No. 25502 of 2019 titled Ahmad Ullah vs Union of India and 5 others decided by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 13.09.2019.
"It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.
....................................................................................... ......................................................................................
17. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [(1979) 2 SCC 368]. while dealing with the matter of selection of candidates who could be under review, if not found suitable otherwise, the Court explained the reasons being a link between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions and held, that where providing reasons for proposed supersession were essential, then it could not be held to be a valid reason that the concerned officer's record was not such as to justify his selection was not contemplated and thus was not legal. In this context, the Court held:-
35 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "... "Reasons" are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must atleast state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List." The principle has been extended to administrative actions on the premise that it applies with greater rigor to the judgments of the Courts.
20. A Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of M/sPipe Arts India Pvt. Ltd. V. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare [2008 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal 280], wherein the Bench was concerned with an appeal against an order, where prayer for an interim relief was rejected without stating any reasons in a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court noticed, that legality, propriety and correctness of the order was challenged on the ground that no reason was recorded by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the prayer and this has seriously prejudiced the interest of justice. After a detailed discussion on the subject, the Court held:-
36 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "8. The Supreme Court and different High Courts have taken the view that it is always desirable to record reasons in support of the Government actions whether administrative or quasi judicial. Even if the statutory rules do not impose an obligation upon the authorities still it is expected of the authorities concerned to act fairly and in consonance with basic rule of law. These concepts would require that any order, particularly the order which can be subject matter of judicial review, is reasoned one.
16. In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that the reasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Court should record its reasons while disposing of the matter. The Court held as under:
"8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed: "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of 37 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."
M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20428 of 2007.
"15. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150.
38 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a Sphinx
26. In Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, AIR 1974 SC 87, this Court while dealing with the question of selection under Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion Regulation) held that the expression "reasons for the proposed supersession" should not be mere rubber stamp reasons. Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two (See para 28 page 98).
33. In a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shri Swamiji of Shri Admor Mutt etc. etc. vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1, while giving the majority judgment Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97) where the principle in Latin runs as follows: "Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex"
39 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
38. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi and others, (1991) 2 SCC 716, this Court held that even in domestic enquiry if the facts are not in dispute non-recording of reason may not be violative of the principles of natural justice but where facts are disputed necessarily the authority or the enquiry officer, on consideration of the materials on record, should record reasons in support of the conclusion reached (see para 22. pages 738-739)
51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
40 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
41 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
42 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
21. It is interesting to go through the paras on the note file after the decision of the previous Competent Authority in Para-34 of DPAR file cited above. This is reproduced as follows:
"35) Chief Secretary Sd/-9/5/23 Vandita Sharma, IAS Chief Secretary
36) Sd/-9/5/23 Secretary, DPAR
37) Sd/-9/5 Deputy Secretary DPAR (Services)
38) Sd/-23/5 Under Secretary to the Govt.
DPAR (Services-4)
39) Sd/-23/5 Section Officer, DPAR (Services-H) 43 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
39) In para 34, the Chief Minister has ordered that no departmental inquiry is necessary against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS and has directed that appropriate orders be issued in this regard." During the course of the hearings, a parallel file which was run in the Home Department was also submitted for our perusal. The relevant paras are produced below ad verbatim to get greater clarity in the matter:
"Subject: Handing over telephone tapping cases to CBI and regarding File No. HD 33 COD 2019
65) U.S) Sd/-21/02/2022
66) D.S (Crimes) Sd/-21/02/2022
67) Principal Secretary (PCAS) Home Department Sd/-21/2/2022
68) ACS Sd/-22/22
69) Chief Secretary
69. The then Hon'ble Chief Minister, vide Note dated: 19.08.2019 (page-1 c.f), had ordered for an enquiry into telephone tapping of telephones of political leaders belonging to Ruling Party and Opposition parties, as well as their associates, relatives and also Government officials. This enquiry was to be entrusted to CBI. The enquiry was for the incidents for the previous one year i.e., 1.8.2018 to 19.8.2019.
44 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
70. The Government Order entrusting the enquiry and transferring the investigation of Crime No. 6963/2019 of Cyber Crime Police Station and also the other matters to CBI was issued vide G.O dated: 19.8.2019 (page-17 c.f).
71. As far as the investigation into the Crime No. 6963/2019 is concerned, the CBI has given its report and is being dealt separately.
72. The CBI, vide its letter dated: 5.1.2022, has given a report on the matters connected with Sl.No.(ii) and (iii) of the G.O issued on 19.8.2019. The Report, along with the self-contained note, is placed at pages 139-132 c.f
73. The CBI inquired into the cases of technical surveillance/legal interception of telephones from the offices of Commissioner of Police (Bengaluru), ADGP (Intelligence), ADGP (CID), ADGP (ACB) and ADGP (ISD).
74. As informed by CBI, the enquiry reveals that in the case of Commissioner of Police (Bengaluru),
1) 54 numbers which were processed for legal interception were found to be not prima facie associated with the crime numbers for which proposal was made.
2) The numbers of politicians and their associates were intercepted by Bangalore Police without proper justification.
45 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3) The proper procedures as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not followed in its spirit.
4) The proposals were initiated mostly by Sh. S.K. Malteesh, Pl and Sh. Ramchandraiah, ACP who were not investigating officers of the cases in which interceptions were proposed.
6) Enquiry has revealed that the private numbers and mobile phone used by Sh. Ramchandraiah, ACP for receiving intercepted calls have been destroyed by Sh. Ramchandraiah, ACP,
75. As regards, interception by State Intelligence, though a number of politicians and others were intercepted, CBI has reported that not criminality could be attributed to any of the officials/officers.
76. No suspect interception has been found in the offices of ACB, CID, and ISD.
77. CBI has advised action as deemed fit against
(i) Sh. Alok Kumar, IPS, the then Commissioner of Police
(ii) Sh. Ramchandraiah, the then ACP, CCB
(iii) Sh. S.K. Malteesh, the then PI, I/c TSC 46 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
78. I have discussed the matter with Shri S. Kiran, SP. CBI, who inquired into the issue. After the registration of the preliminary enquiry, CBI has conducted the investigation and has not deemed it fit to file any criminal case. The action that the State Government can take is either to conduct further enquiry or to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the officials mentioned by CBI.
79. As CBI has already conducted an investigation and given the report it may action can be worthwhile to conduct further enquiry by any State Agency. Disciplinary action can be initiated against the officials mentioned. CBI can be asked to furnish the details and the evidences for initiating the disciplinary action. For orders -
Sd/-28/2 (P. RAVI KUMAR) Chief Secretary."
22. It is obvious that the officers of the rank of the Chief Secretary, Secretary DPAR, Deputy Secretary, DPAR, Under Secretary DPAR and Section Officer have initialed the note file without any further comments. This is at best, passive acceptance of the orders of the Competent Authority at Para-34 and cannot be considered to be active approval, in the light of their recommendations from para-22 to para 33. From the 47 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE above notings, on the files of the DPAR and the Home Department, a very clear cut conclusion can be drawn that the orders of the earlier Competent Authority were not at all in consonance with the recommendations of the CBI and the officers in the DPAR and Home, including the Chief Secretary. The orders were not grounded in any logic or reasoning and can be considered to be arbitrary.
23. In the light of the above background, let us look at the notings regarding the decision taken by the subsequent Competent Authority, which is as follows:
"63) Presently, since the CBI in its letter at pg. 65 has requested for intimation of action taken on the officers, it may be informed that no departmental inquiry has been initiated against the said officers as the Hon'ble Chief Minister has not approved for disciplinary action against Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS and Shri Alok Kumar, IPS. A draft letter to the CBI in this regard has been submitted for approval along with the letter (page 65).
Sd/- 19/7 Section officer, DPAR (Services-H)
64) Under Secretary, DPAR (Services-4) Examined as instructed in note 58 and submitted the details in para 61-63 with the above information the draft letter to CBI may be approved.
48 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Sd/-19/7 Under Secretary to the Govt, DPAR (Services-4)
65) Deputy Secretary (Services) In view of details in notes 61 & 62, note 63 and the amended draft letter to SP, CBI (Pg 65) may be approved by CS sir Sd/- 19/7 Deputy Secretary DPAR (Services)
66) Secretary, DPAR: For approval Sd/-20/7/24 Secretary DPAR
67) Hon'ble Chief Secretary The CBI has been entrusted with the investigation of the telephone tapping case vide Home Department Order No. HD 33 COD 2009 dated 19.8.2019. After completing the investigation of this case, the CBI has submitted an investigation report to the Chief Secretary to the Government. In this report departmental inquiry against Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS (KN 1990) and Shri Alok Kumar, IPS, (KN 1994) was recommended.
68) The previous Hon'ble Chief Minister had accepted the clarifications given by Shri Alok Kumar and Shri Bhaskar Rao and ordered that there is no need for the departmental inquiry against 49 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE them vide para no: 34. The extract of the order is reproduced as below:
"Based on the representation submitted by Sri Alok Kumar, IPS dt 26.3.2023 (enclosed), I have passed detailed orders in connected file C.No. 137312, HD 33 COD 2019. My orders in the connected file also holds good in this case also, exonerating Shri Alok Kumar, IPS hence there is no need to conduct Disciplinary Enquiry against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS. Issue order accordingly."
69) The competent authority has not accepted the recommendation of the CBI which had recommended disciplinary action against the said officers, in the case of telephone tapping after completing the investigation. Note sheet paragraphs from 39 to 44 may be perused in this regard. It has been concluded that, no need to issue an order to close the case since the charge sheet was not been issued.
70) CBI vide its letter dated 25.6.2024 has sought information regarding the action taken against Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS (KN 1990) and Shri Alok Kumar, IPS, (KN 1994). Because of the above said reasons no action has been initiated against Shri Bhaskar Rao (who has taken voluntary retirement) and Shri Alok Kumar as ordered by the previous Hon'ble Chief Minister in Para no 34.
71) Submitted for the Orders of the Hon'ble Chief Minister about informing the CBI about the decision taken by the then Chief Minister in para no 34 50 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Sd/-
(Dr. Rajneesh Goel) Chief Secretary to the Government
72) Hon'ble Chief Minister The report submitted to the government by the CBI on the phone tapping allegations against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS, former Commissioner of Police, Bangalore and Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS, former ADGP, KSRP (now retired) has been examined for action. In para no 34, the former Hon'ble Chief Minister, has considered the appeal submitted to the government by Shri Alok Kumar and ordered that no disciplinary action is necessary against him. On examination of the file in detail, the CBI has made the following observations in its report submitted to the government:
"In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above and based on preponderance of probabilities, the competent in CBI has recommended the RDA for major penalty against Shri Alok Kumar, the then Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and Shri Bhaskar Rao, the then ADGP, KSRP.
In view of the above recommendation, the decision to drop disciplinary action against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS has been reconsidered and disciplinary action be initiated against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS and Shri Bhaskar Rao, IPS., now retired as per All India Services (Discipline & Appeals) Rules 1969. Draft charge sheet in Annexure-I to IV against Shri Alok Kumar be submitted.
51 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Since Shri Bhaskar Rao is retired, it shall be separately submitted after examining as per rules for taking action against him.
Sd/-
(Siddaramaiah).
Chief Minister
73) Chief Secretary to Govt --- for Immediate action (Sd/- 06.05.2025)
74) Secretary to Govt, DPAR (Sd/- 06.05.2025)
75) Deputy Secretary (Services) For immediate action as given in note 72 by Hon'ble CM. (Sd/- 06.05.2025)
76) Sd/-6/5 Under Secretary to the Govt, DPAR (Services-4)
77) Sd/-6/5 Section officer, DPAR (Services-H)
77) pre paras may be perused.
78) Regarding the allegations against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS are explained in paragraphs 27 and 28, as per the recommendation of CBI a draft charge sheet I to IV along with the show cause notice under Rule 8(4) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) 52 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Rules which may be issued to the officer as approves by Hon'ble Chief Minister is submitted as directed.
Sd/-8/5 Section officer, DPAR (Services-H
79) Under Secretary, DPAR (Services-4)
79) Pre paras for kind perusal. As ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Minister in paragraph 72, a draft Annexures 1 to 4 is prepared for issuance against Shri Alok Kumar, IPS, ADGP, Training, Bangalore and submitted in page 79-70.
80) Approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister may be sought for issuing the said annexures to the officers.
Sd/-8/5 Under Secretary to the Govt DPAR (Services-4)
81) Deputy Secretary (Services) Notice u/ Rule 8/4) of AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 and Revised draft article of charges have been kept in pages 103 to 91. They have been the prepared based on the material evidence available with DPAR based on reports from CBI.
The same may be submitted to Hon'ble Chief Minister for his approval.
Sd/-8/5 53 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Deputy Secretary DPAR (Services)
82) Secretary, DPAR As per the para 72(A), the draft charge sheet in annexure I to IV against Sri. Alok Kumar, IPS is submitted in pg no: 92-103. The approval of the Hon'ble CM may be sought for initiation of departmental enquiry by issuing the charge sheet.
Sd/-8/5/2025 Secretary to Govt.
D.P.A.R.
83) Chief Secretary Sd/-8/5 Chief Secretary
84) Hon'ble Chief Minister: Approved Sd/-
(Siddaramaiah).
Chief Minister"
24. The decision of the incumbent Competent Authority to review and reconsider the decision of the earlier Competent Authority and to order disciplinary proceedings should be tested on the touchstone of legality, objectivity, logic and also the criteria laid down in the various
54 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Two such judgments, that were highlighted by the Counsel for the applicant are cited below:.
a) In the case of Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation vs. Narasimha Reddy and others (2011) 9 SCC 286, the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in para 40 as under:-
"40. ...................... succeeding Government is duty bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job of the previous ...................................unless the act done by the previous Government is found to be contrary to the statutory provisions, unreasonable or against policy, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power. .........................................."
b) In Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel [(2006) 8 SCC 200] this Court explained: (SCC P. 209, PARA 18) "18. ...................... judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. .......................................... yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the 55 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision- making process and not the decision."
Additionally, it has been stated that the Competent Authority has the power to review but the said power is to be guided by the renowned principles of law. The review can be made but there should be some strong reasons for the same.
25. From the above cited judgments, it is very clear that reconsideration of review of a decision can be carried out if it is unreasonable, or illogical or to the exclusion of consideration of the existing relevant material. This is exactly what has happened in the decision taken by the earlier Competent Authority. As seen from Para-34 of Page 31of DPAR 161 SPS 2021 (P) of DPAR file (page 302 of OA file) and in Para 80 on Pages 79/80 of the connected Home Department file No.C137312 e-HD 33 COD 2019, (Pages 350/351 of OA file) cited above, despite the specific recommendation for the RDA by the CBI and despite 56 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the endorsements of the same at various levels in the Government, right up to the level of Chief Secretary, the earlier Competent Authority has ordered that there was no need to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the applicant. This decision as seen from the above Paras is purely based on the representation submitted by the applicant on 26.03.2023 on meeting the Competent Authority. If the decision was to be based solely on the personal representation of the applicant, what was the need for enquiry/investigation by the CBI. It is incomprehensible that despite a detailed report submitted by the CBI, (120 pages), which includes detailed scrutiny of large number of documents, examination of large number of witnesses, including the applicant himself, reports of the National level Forensic laboratory etc., the then Competent Authority chose to ignore and discard the same. It appears that there was absolutely no consideration given to the report of the CBI and its recommendations. The Competent Authority had interpreted submission of B report by CBI and its acceptance by the CBI Special Court, as total exoneration of the applicant, without factoring RDA recommendation against him by CBI. In this regard, it is relevant to cite a particular para regarding "consideration's in the land mark judgment in Chairman, Life Insurance Cooperation of India and others vs. Masilamani, which has dwelt upon the word 'consider'. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted as follows:
57 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "11. The word "consider", is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be".
Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that, there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide: Director, Marketing, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147; and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. v.State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1771)".
26. In the light of above para, it is abundantly clear that there was no consideration by the previous Competent Authority of the report of the CBI and endorsements of the different functionaries. There is no reference, no noting, no para, absolutely not even a shred of evidence from any level of functionaries in the Government of Karnataka, both in DPAR or the Home, which has been brought on record by the Counsel for the applicant, which has even remotely alluded to or hinted at justifying why the comprehensive report and recommendations of CBI, ( widely believed to be the best investigating agency in the country) should have been disbelieved or discarded or overlooked by the previous Competent Authority.
27. On the contrary, at every level there is endorsement of the draft Charge Sheet, which was duly enclosed, for the approval by the previous 58 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Competent Authority . Hence, it is just not understood as to how and why the earlier competent authority chose to disregard the report of the CBI which recommended RDA. It is a classic case of being Blind in Plain sight, which means something is unnoticeable because its so obvious or visible. The CBI report has been blind sided.
28. Hence, It is abundantly clear from the above chronological sequence of events that the decision of the present Competent Authority is essentially affirmation of the report of the CBI and also acceptance of the recommendations of the various levels in the Government in both DPAR and HOME department, which are very much on record.
29. The decision of the present Competent Authority has only remedied the situation or undone the harm which was done by the earlier Competent Authority. This decision cannot be considered to be illegal or malafide at all, as it is in consonance with the recommendations of the report of the CBI and also the endorsements of the various level of officers' upto the Chief Secretary as cited in paras above.
30. Furthermore, there are a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts which indicate that the Courts 59 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE and Tribunals can interfere in Disciplinary Proceedings in very limited situations and circumstances. In brief, the situations in which Courts can interfere in departmental proceedings are delineated below:
"A. Violation of Natural Justice:
If the principles of natural justice, such as the right to a fair hearing or the right to cross-examine witnesses, are violated, the court may intervene.
B. Violation of Statutory Regulations:
If the departmental inquiry was conducted contrary to the prescribed statutory rules and regulations, the court can step in.
C. Perverse or Arbitrary Findings:
If the findings of the disciplinary authority are found to be perverse, arbitrary, or not supported by any evidence, the court can interfere.
D. Extraneous Considerations:
If the disciplinary authority's decision is based on considerations outside the scope of the evidence or the merits of the case, the court may intervene.
E. Disproportionate Punishment:
60 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE If the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct, the court may consider it a ground for interference, although courts are generally reluctant to substitute their own judgment on punishment.
F. Lack of Jurisdiction or Bias:
If the disciplinary authority lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry or if there is a demonstrable bias against the delinquent employee, the court may intervene.
G. Violation of Statutory Rules:
If the disciplinary proceedings violate any specific statutory rules governing such proceedings, the court can interfere.
H. No Evidence:
If the disciplinary authority's findings are not supported by any evidence, the court can intervene."
31. In this regard, for ease of convenience, relevant extract of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors.
vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, in para nos. 12, 13, 16 & 17 are cited below:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the 61 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (2015) 2 SCC 610 (1977) 2 SCC 491 (2014) 4 SCC 108
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
62 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
14. ........................
15. .......................
16. These principles have been succinctly summed up by the living legend and centenarian V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491: 1977 SCC (L&S) 298]. To quote the unparalleled and inimitable expressions: (SCC p. 493, para 4) "4. ... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental 63 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. ..."
32. Now, we summarise the entire sequence of events as follows:
1) Initially, a criminal case was registered in Cyber Crime Police Station on 19.08.2019 regarding unauthorized interception of telephonic calls etc.
2) As per the directions of the then Competent Authority, the case was transferred to the CBI for investigation.
3) The CBI after detailed investigation came to the conclusion that material was not sufficient to file Charge Sheet but was enough to carry out departmental action.
64 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
4) Accordingly, the CBI wrote to the Government of Karnataka to initiate RDA against the applicant and one more IPS officer vide letter No.2124/3/RC2172019A0006/ACU-V/AC-II/CBI/New Delhi dated 10.09.2021 duly enclosing its detailed report of 120 pages.
5) The then Competent Authority, despite clear and specific recommendations of RDA by the CBI and despite the same being endorsed by the different functionaries of the DPAR and Home Department of Government of Karnataka (including the then Chief Secretary), gave orders for dropping further action in the matter. No material or grounds for this rejection of the report of CBI and functionaries of Government of Karnataka were given by the then Competent Authority in its orders. It is evident that the decision of previous Competent Authority was not in consonance with the directions of several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited supra, including the following judgments:
1) Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel [(2006) 8 SCC 200] - As the decision excludes existing relevant material [Details on Page-54 Para-24(b)].
65 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
2) Chairman, Life Insurance Cooperation of India and others vs. Masilamani reported in AIRONLINE 2012 SC 426 -The decision of the previous Competent Authority does not indicate consideration of all relevant aspects of the matter and intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record i.e., the report of the CBI and the endorsement of different officers of DPAR and Home Department (Details on Page-56 Para-25). Furthermore, Courts are expected to interfere in the departmental proceedings only in limited conditions, as stated in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P.Gunasekaran (Page-60 Para-31). There is nothing on record that even one of these conditions was met to accept quashing of the departmental proceedings.
6) Furthermore, the CBI sent a reminder letter to the Government of Karnataka on 25.06.2024 inquiring about the action taken on its recommendations as per its earlier report.
66 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
7) The present Competent Authority, subsequently has taken cognizance of the report of the CBI and has ordered initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
33. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and the large of number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
34. H owever, we cannot close our eyes to the following important aspects of the OA:
1. The investigation in this case, initially by the Cyber Crime police Station began in 2019 on 19.08.2019 and subsequently by the CBI on 30.08.2019. Five years have passed since the commencement of the investigation in this case.
2. The CBI had recommended RDA in its report dated 10.09.2021 to the Government of Karnataka for which a reminder was also sent by CBI on 25.06.2024.
3. The Charge Memo has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings have commenced only on 09.05.2025, when the 67 OA/240/2025/CAT/BANGALORE applicant was on the cusp of promotion having been twice cleared by the DPC held on 22.12.2023 and 04.12.2024.
4. Hence, it is imperative that disciplinary proceedings are completed in the shortest possible time and preferably within the period stipulated in Circular No.CASUE/18/SEEV/2021 DATED 04.10.2021 of Government of Karnataka, Annexure A5.
35. Hence, we issue the following:
ORDER
1) The OA is dismissed
2) The respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings, as stipulated in the Circular No.CASUE/18/SEEV/2021 DATED 04.10.2021 of the Government of Karnataka, on receipt of the explanation of the applicant, No costs.
sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) MEMBER(A) sd.