No Vigilance Probe Against UP IAS Officer On Complaint Without Affidavit Or State Vigilance Committee Approval: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint against a Class-I officer of the State which is not backed by an affidavit, as required by the Government Orders governing complaints against Group-A officers, cannot be made the basis of a vigilance inquiry, particularly when the matter has not been placed before the State Vigilance Committee for approval. It quashed the vigilance...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint against a Class-I officer of the State which is not backed by an affidavit, as required by the Government Orders governing complaints against Group-A officers, cannot be made the basis of a vigilance inquiry, particularly when the matter has not been placed before the State Vigilance Committee for approval.
It quashed the vigilance enquiry against an IAS officer on a complaint the complainant later admitted was made under a wrong impression.
Justice Rajeev Singh held,
“As per the Government Orders dated 18.05.1991, 12.09.1995, 09.05.1997, and 06.08.2018, the requirement of an affidavit in support of the complaint was incorporated solely to protect honest officers from being victimized on the basis of fictitious or false complaints. In the present case, no affidavit was filed in support of the complaint. However, in the most hasty manner, on the very same date of the complaint, a vigilance inquiry was ordered and departmental proceeding was initiated, and an F.I.R. was also lodged against Nikant Jain.”
Petitioner, a 2006 batch IAS officer, was then Chief Executive Officer of Invest U.P. On 20.03.2025, an official of SAEL Solar P6 Private Limited complained to the Chief Secretary that while the company's solar manufacturing proposal was pending before Invest U.P.'s Evaluation Committee, a senior officer of Invest U.P. gave him the number of a private person, Nikant Jain, who could get it cleared up to the Cabinet. It was alleged that Jain demanded 5% of the project, which the company refused, after which its proposal was deferred.
The same day, an FIR was lodged against Jain, the petitioner was suspended and proceeded against under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, and a vigilance inquiry was sought against him, leading to Open Vigilance Enquiry No. 64/2025.
When Jain challenged the chargesheet against him under Section 528 BNSS, the complainant filed a counter affidavit stating that the complaint had been made out of confusion and misunderstanding, as he was unaware that reports from YEIDA (Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority) and UPPCL (Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited) on the availability of land and electricity concessions were awaited. The High Court allowed Jain's application.
Challenging the suspension and vigilance inquiry, counsel for petitioner argued that the Government Order dated 09.05.1997 bars action on a complaint against a Group-A officer unless it is supported by an affidavit of the complainant, which was reiterated by the State in 2018. It was further argued that under the demi-official letters dated 18.05.1991 and 12.09.1995, a proposal for a vigilance inquiry against a gazetted officer has to be placed before the State Vigilance Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, which was not done.
The State argued that the vigilance inquiry was ordered considering the gravity of the allegations and that the complaint was not fictitious, while admitting that the 1997 Government Order was issued to discourage fictitious complaints against Group-A officers.
The Court noted that the letter seeking the vigilance inquiry was written at 19:47:17 hours on the very day of the complaint, without any affidavit supporting it. It held that the Government Orders of 1991 and 1995 had also been flouted.
“Once the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, the authorities, without awaiting the outcome thereof, referred the vigilance matter to the Vigilance Department for inquiry, without placing the matter before the State Vigilance Committee for its approval.”
Relying on the record of the Evaluation Committee examined in Jain's case, the Court found that the company's proposal had been deferred for want of YEIDA's confirmation on the 200 acres of land and UPPCL's clarification on electricity duty, and not without reason.
Applying the principle of 'Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus', that the structure falls once its foundation is removed, the Court held,
“Once the complaint made by the official of the company is found to be false, as the complainant himself has admitted, the entire proceedings based upon the said complaint also fall.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the orders dated 20.03.2025 and 28.03.2025 as well as Open Vigilance Enquiry No. 64/2025 were set aside.
Case Title: Abhishek Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 5 others