Court says complaint against Class-I officer was not supported by mandatory affidavit and vigilance inquiry was initiated without required State Vigilance Committee approval
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has set aside a vigilance inquiry and related orders against IAS officer Abhishek Prakash, holding that the proceedings were initiated in violation of government guidelines meant to protect honest officers from frivolous complaints.
Justice Rajeev Singh allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 20.03.2025, the consequential order dated 28.03.2025, and Open Vigilance Enquiry No. 64/2025. The Court found that the complaint on which the action was based was not supported by an affidavit, even though multiple government orders require such an affidavit before complaints against Class-I officers can be acted upon.
The Court noted that the State Government’s instructions, including those issued on 18.05.1991, 12.09.1995, 09.05.1997 and 06.08.2018, were intended to prevent harassment of officers through false or fictitious allegations. It also held that the authorities failed to follow the prescribed procedure of obtaining approval from the State Vigilance Committee before initiating a vigilance inquiry.
According to the petition, the complaint was made by an official of a private company seeking approval for a solar manufacturing project. The complaint alleged that a demand was made through a private intermediary for facilitating project approval. However, during related proceedings before the High Court in another case, the complainant himself filed an affidavit stating that the complaint had been made under a misunderstanding.
Relying on this admission, the Court invoked the principle of “Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus” — once the foundation falls, the superstructure also collapses — and held that the entire vigilance action based on the complaint could not survive. The Court also observed that the project proposal had continued to be processed by the authorities and was not shown to have been wrongly stalled in the manner alleged.
The petitioner had argued that the mandatory affidavit requirement and the approval mechanism for vigilance action against Group-A/Class-I officers were ignored. The State opposed the plea, contending that the allegations were serious and justified inquiry. However, the Court found the procedure to be defective and the complaint itself unreliable.
With these findings, the High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner and ordered that all proceedings arising from the impugned vigilance action be set aside.
Bottom Line:
Requirement of affidavit for complaints against Class-I officers is crucial to safeguard honest officers from frivolous or fictitious allegations. Without such an affidavit, vigilance inquiries, disciplinary proceedings, or FIRs initiated are procedurally improper.
Statutory provision(s): All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Section 308(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 8/12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Abhishek Prakash v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2982549
