CAT Quashes Suspension Of IPS Officer Vikash Kumar Vikash, Says Prima Facie RCB Responsible For Mishap

The bench consisting of Judicial Member Justice B Okay Shrivastava and Member Santosh Mehra noticed that the Police didn’t get time to make preparations for crowd administration since RCB “all of a sudden posted” concerning the occasion on social media platforms, with out in search of prior permission.

“Prima facie it seems that the RCB is accountable for the gathering of about three to 5 lakh folks…It can not anticipated from the Police that inside a short while of about 12 hours the Police will make all preparations required within the Police Act or within the different guidelines, and so forth. Police personnel are additionally human beings. They’re neither “God”(Bhagwan) nor Magician and in addition not having the magic powers like “Alladdin ka Chirag” which was in a position to fulfil any want solely by rubbing a finger . To manage the aforesaid kind of gathering and for making the right preparations ample time ought to be given to the Police,” the bench remarked.

It thus ordered the State to re-instate Vikash instantly, treating the interval of suspension as on obligation with full pay and allowances.

By the order dated 05.06.2025 different officers who have been suspended included IPS officer B. Dayananda (Further Director Normal & Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru Metropolis, Bengaluru), IPS officer Shekar H Tekkannavar (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Bengaluru Metropolis), C. Balakrishna (Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru) and A.Okay. Girish (Police Inspector, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru) was additionally suspended.

The bench stated “We count on from the Authorities that the Authorities will give the identical profit to the opposite officers who have been suspended by the identical order Annexure – A3.”

The applicant contended that the suspension order is liable to be quashed as a result of there was no fault of the applicant. There was an absence of time to arrange for the massive occasion. The suspension order has been issued with out issuing a present trigger discover or with out granting any alternative for exhibiting the defence. Suspension is an excessive measure and may solely be imposed in case of grave misconduct, corruption, prison negligence, and so forth.

Additional, the suspension order is a cyclostyled and mechanical order issued with out unbiased analysis of the applicant’s function. The magisterial inquiry remains to be pending, whereas the applicant has been suspended with none major findings. Due to this fact, the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed.

The respondents opposed the appliance submitting that Karnataka Police Handbook describes the duties and duties of police. The first obligation of the Police is to stop crime however contemplating the occasions resulting in the tragedy prima facie suggests lack of policing on the a part of the Jurisdictional Bengaluru Metropolis Police which led to the unlucky incident on the Chinnaswamy Stadium on 04.06.2025. Prima facie it seems that the applicant and different officers failed to take care of legislation and order.

Findings:

The bench referred to the impugned order which talked about that “pending enquiry it’s discovered that there was a considerable dereliction of obligation”. “What’s the base of this sentence?, isn’t clear.”, it stated.

It additionally stated it’s talked about within the order that the CEO of RCB had intimated the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru Metropolis on 03.06.2025 about holding the victory parade and celebration on 04.06.2025. The aforesaid portion of the order isn’t right as a result of the respondents didn’t submit the copy of any intimation submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru on 03.06.2025.

Referring to the letter issued by the Karnataka State Cricket Affiliation dated June 3, informing the inspector of Cubbon Park police station concerning the victory parade. The bench stated “The letter was submitted to the Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru. Any copy of this letter was not given to any superior officer. It isn’t proven that the copy was additionally given to the current applicant Shri Vikash Kumar Vikash or different officers, Shri B. Dayananda or Shri Shekar H Tekkannavar.”

Stating that the permission for procession and meeting ought to be taken from the Further Commissioner of Police and legislation and order as per the “Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Procession (Bengaluru Metropolis) Order, 2009.

It stated, “Upon foundation of this letter, prima facie the police was not sure to present any services or to offer any help. Regardless of that the Police supplied the right preparations so far as attainable.”

Emphasising that the federal government has ordered a magisterial inquiry and one man inquiry fee, to establish who was accountable for the stampede. It stated “The Authorities was not within the place to establish the truth that which particular person or which officers have been accountable for the aforesaid stampede.”

The bench referred to the tweets made by RCB asserting the victory parade and stated “Prima facie it seems that the RCB is accountable for the gathering of about three to 5 lakh folks. The RCB didn’t take the suitable permission or consent from the Police. Immediately, they posted on social media platforms and on account of aforesaid data the general public have been gathered. Due to a scarcity of time on 04.06.2026, the Police have been unable to do the suitable preparations. Ample time was not given to the Police.”

Following which it held “Prima facie, it seems that, on the time of passing the impugned order of suspension, any materials was not accessible for exhibiting the “substantial dereliction of obligation”. There was no any materials for exhibiting the truth that the Police was having ample time to make all of the preparations. No permission was granted by the Police as a result of the involved organizer didn’t apply for the permission as per Guidelines. As per phrases of inquiry, it’s but to be ascertained who was the accountable particular person for the lapses and deficiencies.”

It added “Within the aforesaid all circumstances, in view of this Tribunal the order Annexure – A3 has been handed in a mechanical method and the order isn’t primarily based upon the convincing supplies. The Cops have been suspended with none ample materials or grounds. Therefore, the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed.”

Look: Senior Counsel Dhyan Chinnappa for Adv. Dhanush Menon and Adv. Akshay Ramachandra Huddar for Applicant.

AAG Reuben Jacob, a/w Advocate Shri M. Rajakumar for Respondent.