On 21 September 2026, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Justice Rajeev Singh) set aside an Open Vigilance Enquiry against a senior IAS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre, holding that the State had not followed its own Government Orders on complaints against Group-A officers. The ruling is reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729.
What was decided
The enquiry arose from a March 2025 complaint by a company representative alleging that a private intermediary demanded a percentage of a proposed investment project. On the same day, the officer was suspended and proceeded against under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, and a vigilance enquiry was sought. The complainant later filed an affidavit in separate proceedings stating that the complaint arose from confusion and misunderstanding.
The Court relied on UP Government Orders of 18 May 1991, 12 September 1995, 9 May 1997 and 6 August 2018. Under these, a complaint against a Group-A officer must be supported by the complainant’s affidavit, and a proposal for a vigilance enquiry against a gazetted officer must be placed before the State Vigilance Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. Neither step was taken here. The Court said the affidavit requirement exists to protect honest officers from “fictitious or false complaints”.
Applying the maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus (when the foundation goes, the structure falls), the Court held that once the complaint was withdrawn as false, proceedings based on it could not stand. It quashed the orders of 20 and 28 March 2025 and the Open Vigilance Enquiry.
Why it matters
This is a direct reminder that UP Vigilance Establishment enquiries against Group-A and gazetted officers are governed by specific State procedures. Where a complaint is unsupported by affidavit or the State Vigilance Committee has not approved the enquiry, the enquiry may be open to challenge under Article 226.
For complainants, including businesses dealing with State agencies, it shows that complaints against senior officers should be made carefully, on affidavit, and with supporting material.
Practical points
- Ask for the complaint, any affidavit and the State Vigilance Committee’s approval behind an open enquiry.
- Note the sequence and timing of suspension, disciplinary action and vigilance orders.
- Later retraction or clarification by a complainant can be relevant to the foundation of the enquiry.
- Criminal investigation under the PC Act may follow different rules; assess each proceeding separately.
Sources: LiveLaw, 21 September 2026.
For a confidential discussion on UP Vigilance enquiries, see Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI and vigilance matters.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
