Patna: In a significant development involving Bihar cadre IPS officer Aditya Kumar, the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has refused to quash disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations that the name of a former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court was misused to influence senior police officials.
The decision, delivered on October 13, 2026, comes against the backdrop of another CAT ruling that had provided relief to the 2011-batch officer in a separate departmental matter. Following that earlier ruling, the Bihar Home Department issued a resolution on October 16 closing proceedings relating to allegations from his tenure as Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Gaya.
The two developments have placed Kumar’s disciplinary history, legal challenges and possible promotion to Deputy Inspector General (DIG) under renewed scrutiny.
CAT Refuses to Quash Proceedings in Fake Chief Justice Case
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Narendra Kumar Johari and Administrative Member Kumar Rajesh Chandra rejected Kumar’s challenge to a charge memorandum issued by the Bihar government in March 2025.
The disciplinary proceedings concern allegations that an individual impersonated the then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and contacted senior police officials to secure favourable administrative decisions for Kumar.
The tribunal held that the existence of criminal proceedings did not prevent the government from independently examining alleged misconduct under departmental service rules.
It explained that criminal prosecutions and disciplinary inquiries operate under different legal standards. While criminal charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, departmental misconduct is assessed on the balance of probabilities.
The CAT consequently declined to interfere with the initiation of disciplinary action.
Read also: Who Is Bihar IPS Officer Aditya Kumar? Departmental Proceedings Closed, DIG Promotion in Focus
What Was the Alleged Fake Chief Justice Conspiracy?
The controversy dates back to October 2022, when Bihar’s Economic Offences Unit registered an FIR concerning the alleged impersonation of the then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.
According to investigators, Abhishek Agarwal allegedly created a WhatsApp profile using the photograph of then Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and contacted senior police officials, including then Bihar Director General of Police S.K. Singhal.
The communications allegedly sought favourable administrative decisions relating to Kumar, who had faced departmental allegations during his posting in Gaya.
Investigators accused Kumar of being involved in the conspiracy. However, these remain allegations, and the disciplinary tribunal’s latest order does not establish his criminal guilt.
The case attracted considerable attention because it involved the alleged misuse of the identity of the head of the state’s judiciary to influence police administration.
Suspension, Surrender and Bail
Following registration of the criminal case, Kumar was suspended on October 18, 2022.
He subsequently faced legal proceedings concerning his arrest. In November 2023, the Supreme Court declined to grant him anticipatory bail and directed him to surrender.
Kumar surrendered before a criminal court in December 2023 and secured bail in April 2024.
His suspension continued for a prolonged period, although the legality of its extensions became the subject of a separate dispute before the CAT.
In March 2025, the tribunal declared the extensions beyond October 17, 2023 invalid because the prescribed statutory procedure had not been followed. This ruling concerned the validity of the suspension extensions rather than the merits of the criminal allegations.
Kumar was subsequently reinstated in October 2025 after approximately three years under suspension.
Why Did Aditya Kumar Challenge the Disciplinary Proceedings?
The Bihar government issued the disputed charge memorandum on March 25, 2025, shortly after the CAT’s ruling concerning the suspension extensions.
Kumar argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated with malicious intent and that the government had waited more than two years before taking action.
He also alleged that the proceedings were designed to harass him and prevent his promotion to DIG.
However, the tribunal observed that the authorities had begun considering disciplinary action in December 2022, long before Kumar obtained relief concerning his suspension.
The Bench held that the timing of the charge memorandum, without additional supporting evidence, was insufficient to establish retaliation or mala fide intent.
It also observed that one of the departmental charges concerned Kumar’s alleged unauthorised absence from his designated headquarters while under suspension.
The tribunal refused to quash the charge memorandum or grant promotion-related relief on the assumption that the disciplinary inquiry did not exist.
CAT Directs Government to Complete Inquiry Within Six Months
Although the tribunal permitted the proceedings to continue, it expressed concern about the prolonged disciplinary process.
It directed the authorities to endeavour to complete the inquiry within six months while providing Kumar a fair opportunity to present his defence.
The Bench clarified that its observations were limited to the legality of initiating disciplinary proceedings and that it had not decided whether the allegations against Kumar were true.
This distinction is significant because the order neither convicts nor exonerates the officer in the underlying criminal case.
Bihar Government Closes Separate Departmental Case
In another development, the Bihar Home Department issued a resolution dated October 16, 2026, terminating departmental proceedings against Kumar relating to allegations from his tenure as Gaya SSP.
The action followed a CAT order dated August 11, 2026, concerning an earlier departmental inquiry.
Reports indicate that the tribunal had set aside the inquiry report and directed the authorities to consider Kumar’s promotion benefits in accordance with the applicable eligibility conditions.
The state government subsequently sought legal advice from Bihar’s Advocate General before deciding to implement the tribunal’s order.
The closure is confirmed by the Bihar Home Department’s published notification list, which records an October 16 order concerning the termination of departmental proceedings against Aditya Kumar.
Importantly, this relief relates to a different departmental matter from the charge memorandum considered in the October 13 CAT ruling. Therefore, the closure of one proceeding does not automatically invalidate the other.
What Were the Allegations During His Gaya SSP Tenure?
During his posting as SSP of Gaya, Kumar faced departmental allegations relating to the handling of a liquor-seizure case and supervision of police stations.
The accusations included alleged negligence in dealing with the illicit liquor recovery matter, inadequate control over subordinate police personnel and failure to carry out required police station inspections.
A departmental inquiry was initiated in 2022, and an inquiry report reportedly found two allegations substantiated.
Kumar subsequently challenged the proceedings before the CAT, leading to the August 2026 order and the state government’s decision to close the departmental matter.
These allegations and the separate impersonation-related proceedings should not be treated as a single disciplinary case.
Who Is IPS Aditya Kumar? Education, Background and Career
Aditya Kumar is a 2011-batch Indian Police Service officer belonging to the Bihar cadre.
Born on January 20, 1983, he hails from Uttar Pradesh and entered the IPS through direct recruitment in December 2011. His birth date and batch are also reflected in Bihar government’s official IPS records.
During his police career, Kumar has served in important field and administrative assignments across Bihar.
Between 2019 and 2020, he served as Assistant Inspector General (Rail) in Patna, an assignment involving railway policing and related administrative responsibilities.
He later became Senior Superintendent of Police in Gaya, serving during 2021–2022. This posting became a turning point in his career following allegations concerning the handling of a liquor case and subsequent disciplinary action.
After his suspension in October 2022 and the legal proceedings that followed, he returned to service in October 2025.
More recent reports identify him as Commandant of Bihar Special Armed Police-14 in Patna, with additional charge as SP (E) in the Criminal Investigation Department. An officer-profile listing also mentions an Anti-Narcotics Task Force posting, but the supplied information does not establish whether that reflects an earlier assignment or an updated posting.
Allegations of Disproportionate Assets
Apart from the impersonation controversy, Kumar also faced allegations in a disproportionate-assets investigation.
According to the information provided, the Special Vigilance Unit registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act involving allegations of assets worth approximately ₹1.37 crore beyond known sources of income.
Searches were reportedly conducted at properties connected with him in Patna, Ghaziabad and Meerut.
The available information does not establish the final judicial outcome of that investigation. It should therefore be described as a separate allegation rather than a proven finding of corruption.
Will IPS Aditya Kumar Be Promoted to DIG?
The August 2026 CAT ruling and subsequent closure of the earlier departmental proceedings brought Kumar’s prospects of promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General into focus.
According to reports of that ruling, the tribunal directed that, if found eligible, Kumar should receive appropriate promotion consideration and consequential benefits with reference to the date on which his juniors were promoted.
However, the October 13 ruling in the separate impersonation-related disciplinary case declined to grant promotion relief on the assumption that no departmental inquiry was pending.
Consequently, his promotion cannot be described as confirmed. Any decision will depend on the applicable service rules, eligibility requirements and the status of relevant proceedings.
The latest developments underline the distinction between relief granted in one departmental matter and the continuing legal scrutiny arising from another.
