Dan Bahadur Karki Challenges IGP Removal in Supreme Court

Kathmandu. Dan Bahadur Karki, who went to the Supreme Court after being removed from the post of Inspector General (IGP) of Nepal Police by the government, has claimed that a new IGP was appointed without the post becoming vacant. In the writ petition registered at the Supreme Court on Friday, he has demanded that the Council of Ministers' decision to illegally remove him while he still had 18 months of tenure left and appoint Dr. Manoj Kumar KC as IGP be quashed. On November 4, the government decided to appoint Karki as the Prime Minister's Special Security Advisor at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers through a cabinet meeting. On the same day, the government promoted Additional Inspector General (AIG) of Police Dr. Manoj Kumar KC to the post of Inspector General of Nepal Police. Karki, through his attorney, claimed in the writ petition filed at the Supreme Court that promoting another person to his post when it was not vacant was automatically illegal, contrary to Rule 41 of the Nepal Police Regulations, 2071. The writ petition mentions that the Police Regulations stipulate a tenure of 4 years for the Inspector General of Police. Karki claims that being assigned to a newly created post indirectly with the intention of removal, when he still had 18 months left before mandatory retirement and had not resigned, was a malicious move. He stated that he was transferred to an advisory post outside the police organization without being asked for any explanation, without consent, and without legal basis, calling it an ultra vires decision. Karki has presented legal principles and precedents established by the Supreme Court in the past cases of Achyut Krishna Kharel and Hitenradev Shakya in his favor. His petition states that those judgments interpreted that the executive cannot arbitrarily remove or transfer a serving official without reason and justification. He claims that the advisor post is outside the chain of command of the police organization and that his constitutional and legal right to profession and employment has been violated by the transfer to that post. In the writ filed by him, a demand has been made to quash the Council of Ministers' decision of November 4, all correspondence done by the Home Ministry based on it, and all related actions through a writ of certiorari. Furthermore, a writ of quo warranto has been sought asking by what legal status the newly appointed Dr. Manoj Kumar KC holds the post, and a writ of prohibition has been sought to prevent him from performing any work as IGP. Karki has also sought an interim order not to implement the Council of Ministers' decision until the final verdict of this dispute is reached by the court, not to allow the new IGP to work, and to allow him to continue his work in the former capacity as Inspector General of Nepal Police. He claims that this move by the government will seriously affect the institutional continuity, chain of command, and professional impartiality of the police organization.