Back
Can Proceed Without Against IAS Officer? Says No
The has firmly ruled that a cannot be initiated against a Class-I officer of the based on a complaint that lacks a supporting and has not been vetted by the . Justice Rajeev Singh quashed the entire against 2006-batch IAS officer Abhishek Prakash, who was serving as Secretary of the Industry Department and Chief Executive Officer of
The Complaint That Started It All
On , Biswajit Datta, an official of , wrote to the Chief Secretary alleging that while the company's proposal for a solar manufacturing unit was pending before the , a senior officer had given him the mobile number of a private person, Nikant Jain. Datta claimed that Jain demanded 5% of the project cost to facilitate approval and that after the company refused, the proposal was deferred.
The same day, the state government swung into action. An FIR was lodged against Nikant Jain under and . Abhishek Prakash was placed under and under the were initiated. That very evening, at 19:47 hours, the Special Secretary of the wrote to the Principal Secretary of the requesting a against Prakash for . This led to No. 64 of 2025.
The Foundation Crumbles
The petitioner's counsel argued that the entire edifice was built on a complaint that violated mandatory government orders. The , reiterated by subsequent orders in 2012 and 2018, makes it clear that no complaint against a Group-A officer shall be acted upon unless it is supported by an with the full credentials of the complainant. The purpose, as the court noted, was to protect honest officers from .
Additionally, the demi-official letters of , and , require that any proposal for a against a gazetted officer must first be placed before the , headed by the Chief Secretary. The administrative department cannot directly request a without this approval. In this case, the matter was never placed before the committee.
The Complainant's Change of Heart
While Nikant Jain was challenging the against him under , Datta filed a stating that the complaint was made out of "utter confusion and misunderstanding." He explained that the company's proposal had been deferred because reports from the on land availability and from on electricity duty were awaited. He further confirmed that no money had been paid to Jain.
The High Court accepted Jain's application and quashed the proceedings against him. The court examined the original records of the Evaluation Committee meetings and found that the deferral was entirely routine—the company's land was to be made available by , and clarification on electricity duty was pending. There was no adverse action against the company.
No , No Approval, No Case
Justice Rajeev Singh observed that the authorities had acted in "the most hasty manner," ordering a
on the very day of the complaint without any supporting
.
"As per the
, the requirement of an
in support of the complaint was incorporated solely to protect honest officers from being victimized on the basis of fictitious or false complaints,"
the court stated.
The court further held that even after initiating
, the authorities bypassed the
entirely.
"Once the
had been initiated, the authorities, without awaiting the outcome thereof, referred the vigilance matter to the
for inquiry, without placing the matter before the
for its approval."
Applying the Legal Maxim
The court invoked the principle of —when the foundation is removed, the structure falls. Since the complaint itself had been admitted by the complainant to be a mistake, the entire proceedings based on it could not stand. The court relied on the judgments in and , which emphasize that for government servants must be scrupulously followed.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated , the consequential order dated , and the entire No. 64 of 2025 were set aside. The court directed that consequences follow. The judgment reinforces the principle that even serious allegations cannot be used to bypass established safeguards designed to prevent harassment of public servants through baseless complaints.
