Suspension Is Not a Verdict; an Impartial Inquiry Is

Editorial

Armed Police Force Additional Inspector General Banshiraj Dahal has been suspended over allegations of leaking sensitive security information and acting contrary to official conduct. The Home Ministry has formed a committee to investigate the matter and submit its findings within three days. Leaks from within a security agency are serious. But the seriousness of an allegation makes a fair inquiry and credible evidence more necessary, not less.

The ministry has confirmed that information was allegedly leaked but has not said what it was, when it was disclosed or how the leak occurred. Security concerns may prevent the immediate release of every detail. Even so, the government should explain, as far as possible, the basis of the allegation, the inquiry’s scope and the process for reaching a decision. The phrase “sensitive information” cannot substitute for evidence. Protecting confidentiality and ensuring public accountability are compatible responsibilities.

Dahal has also been accused of visiting former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana without authorization. An alleged visit and an alleged leak of security information are separate matters. If the visit took place, it should be examined independently in light of its timing, circumstances, purpose and the applicable conduct rules. One allegation cannot fairly be treated as proof of another. Nor should claims reported in the media be presented as officially established facts.

The suspension came shortly after APF headquarters recommended extending Dahal’s tenure, prompting public questions. That timing alone does not prove retaliation, but it makes a transparent process all the more important. Any decision on extending his tenure should be based on merit, institutional requirements and clear criteria. Suspension must not become an indirect means of deciding a tenure issue.

Suspension may be an administrative step to facilitate an investigation, but it is not a finding of guilt. Dahal should be informed of the allegations, given a fair opportunity to respond and allowed to address the evidence. The inquiry committee should preserve relevant documents and records and examine the source of the alleged leak and any harm it may have caused. With only three days to complete its work, the committee must prioritise evidence-based findings over a hurried report.

Professional discipline within a security agency is essential to public trust. If unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information is established, those responsible should face action under the rules. If the evidence is insufficient, the suspension and allegations should be reviewed, and his professional standing and service rights restored. The state must not allow vague accusations to persist in the name of protecting security; nor should it overlook a proven leak in the name of fairness.

The test in this case is not simply whether Dahal remains suspended. It is whether the inquiry is independent and impartial, whether the allegations are substantiated and whether the decision rests on consistent standards. Only a transparent process and an evidence-based conclusion can protect discipline in the security services, individual rights and public confidence in the government.