The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has stayed the Karnataka government’s move to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry against senior IPS officer Alok Kumar in connection with the 2019 phone tapping case. The tribunal issued the interim order following a petition filed by Kumar, who alleged that the inquiry was unnecessary and politically motivated.
Background of the Case
The alleged phone tapping incident occurred during the tenure of former Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy. Although Alok Kumar was questioned during the initial investigation, he was not found to be involved in any wrongdoing.
Kumar, currently serving as Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), argued in his plea that the matter had already been closed. He cited a CBI closure report (Category ‘B’) and a response received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act dated May 6, 2024, confirming that no departmental inquiry was pending.
Promotion and Timing Under Scrutiny
The IPS officer further highlighted the timing of the state government’s May 9, 2025 notice, issued under Rule 8(4) of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. He claimed the notice was issued just days after the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had cleared his name for promotion to the post of Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP), with his file forwarded to the UPSC on April 23.
Kumar’s counsel also referenced the February 13, 2024 order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru, which had accepted the CBI’s closure report, further reinforcing the conclusion that the case had been formally closed.
Tribunal’s Interim Order
CAT Judicial Member B.K. Srivastava stated that the matter would be heard by a division bench, which is currently unavailable. In the meantime, the tribunal has stayed the May 9 notice until the next hearing scheduled for June 10, 2025. Notices have also been issued to all respondents, including the Chief Secretary of Karnataka, with the tribunal noting that the interim relief may be reconsidered at the next hearing.
Concerns Over Fairness and Motive
The case has attracted public and administrative attention due to its timing, which coincides with Kumar’s expected promotion. This has raised questions regarding procedural fairness and potential political motivations behind the renewed inquiry.
