Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1391
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
RAJEEV SINGH, J.
Abhishek Prakash - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 4034 of 2026
Decided On : 17-09-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.12, S.8
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.528
Headnote
(B) Legal Maxim 'Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus' - When the foundation of a proceeding is removed, the entire structure built upon it falls - If the complaint forming the basis of a vigilance inquiry is admitted by the complainant to be based on a "wrong impression" or "utter confusion and misunderstanding," the subsequent proceedings based on such a complaint cannot be sustained (Paras 8.2, 10.6).
Facts of the case:
A member of the Indian Administrative Service was placed under suspension and a vigilance inquiry for disproportionate assets was initiated based on a complaint by a company official. The complaint alleged that a middleman had demanded a percentage of a project in exchange for approval. Subsequently, the complainant filed an affidavit in a related proceeding admitting that the complaint was made due to a misunderstanding and that no money was given to the middleman.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the vigilance inquiry was initiated in a "hasty manner" without the mandatory affidavit in support of the complaint and without the required approval from the State Vigilance Committee, violating established Government Orders. Furthermore, the complainant's own admission that the complaint was filed under a wrong impression invalidated the basis of the inquiry.
Issues: Whether the initiation of a vigilance inquiry without a supporting affidavit and without the approval of the State Vigilance Committee was legally sustainable, especially after the complainant admitted the complaint was based on a misunderstanding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adherence to policy guidelines regarding the filing of affidavits and the approval of the State Vigilance Committee is mandatory to protect honest officers. Applying the principle of 'Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus', since the foundation (the complaint) was admitted to be false, the entire edifice of the vigilance inquiry and consequential orders must fall.
Result: Writ petition allowed. The impugned order dated 20.03.2025, the consequential impugned order dated 28.03.2025 and the entire Open Vigilance Enquiry No. 64/2025 are hereby set aside.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Utsav Mishra,
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Shri Utsav Mishra and Shri Kaif Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Shri Aniruddh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorariquashing the impugned order dated 20.03.2025, issued by Respondent no 4, including all proceedings based thereupon, copy whereof is contained as Annexure-1 to this Writ Petition.
To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashingthe consequential impugned order dated 28.03.2025, issued by Respondent no.5, including all proceedings based thereupon, copy whereof is contained as Annexure-2 to this Writ Petition.
To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the entire Open Vigilance Enquiry No. 64/2025 initiated against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 and the consequential impugned order dated 28.03.2025, after summoning the original records of the same from the Respondents.
To issue Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents to not to give effect to the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 and the consequential impugned order dated 28.03.2025.”
3.1. The letter dated 18.05.1991 is reproduced as under:-
3.2. The letter dated 12.09.1995 is reproduced as under:-
3.3. The letter dated 09.05.1997 is reproduced as under:-
3.4. The letter dated 06.08.2018 is reproduced as under:-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is member of Indian Administrative Service, U.P. Cadre, 2006 Batch, and presently posted as Secretary, Department of General Administrative, Government of U.P. The petitioner performed his duties to the best of his ability, sincerity, and devotion, and he worked on important assignments in the State of U.P. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted on the post of Secretary, Department of Industry and Infrastructure Development, and Chief Executive Officer, Invest U.P., Government of U.P. Meanwhile, a complaint dated 20.03.2025 was preferred by one Mr. Biswajit Datta, official of S.A.E.L., Solar P6 Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’), to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, with the allegation that Company was willing to establish a unit for manufacturing parts to be used in solar cell and solar energy, and online application was submitted before Invest U.P. The request for this proposed project was being considered in the meeting of Evaluation Committee of Invest U.P. It is also alleged that a senior officer of Invest U.P. had given a mobile number of a private person, namely, Mr. Nikant Jain, stating that if Mr. Jain was desirous, then the application of the Company would be approved by the Empowered Committee and the Cabinet. It is alleged in the complaint dated 20.03.2025 that upon conversation with Mr. Jain with regard to facilitating the approval of the application, a demand of 5% of the project was made, which was refused by the Company. Thereafter, it came into notice that despite approval, his case was deferred, and later on, Mr. Jain told him that without him, his project will not be approved, and also requested for approval of the project.
4.1. It has further been submitted that the State Government, vide Government Order dated 09.05.1997, has provided guidelines to be exercised by the authorities while accepting the complaints against Group-A/Class-1 officers of the State Government. The aforesaid Government Order provides that complaint shall not be acted upon if not supported by an affidavit with credentials of the complainant. This controversy was also dealt with by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 4372 (S/S) of 2011 ( Kumdesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of UP and Others ) dated 03.01.2012, and it was held that the purpose of issuing the Government
