Dismissed

prof. akhilesh kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021CRLP/3743/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a criminal FIR lodged based on a vigilance enquiry report into alleged malpractice in recruitment. The court rejected the argument that the FIR was invalid due to a lack of affidavit from complainants under a government guideline, noting that the specific procedure was bypassed by the initiation of a full-State Vigilance enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the First Information Report and consequent proceedings was dismissed.

prof. akhilesh kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3743 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Prof. Akhilesh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Ranjan Mishra,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the records.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the first information report dated 01.04.2021 registered as Case Crime No.0041 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act' 1988 (as amended Prevention of Corruption (amendment) Act 2018), Police Station Colonolganj, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The categorical assertion in the first information report are that a vigilance enquiry in the matter of approval of appointment made by the petitioner, who was posted as Regional Higher Education Officer, had been conducted under the resolution dated 24.06.2015 of the State Vigilance Committee. In the open enquiry, the report dated 20.12.2018 and supplementary report dated 26.10.2020 were submitted before the State Government.

¶8

It was found in the vigilance enquiry that in the selection to various posts of Class III and Class IV category, 253 candidates were interviewed by the selection committee but no criteria for selection was followed, in as much as, the selection committee did not even award marks to the candidates participated in the interview on the basis of their performance and eligibility. It is then recorded that the entire selection had been made in a fraudulent manner without following the proper procedure in order to provide undue advantage to the beneficiaries.

¶9

The decision for lodging of the first information report, thereafter, had been taken based on the result of the preliminary/vigilance enquiry.

¶10

Challenging the first information report, only submission of the learned Senior Advocate is that the report had been lodged on the complaint of 18 persons who could not be selected on

¶11

various posts of Class III and Class IV category. The complaint lodged by the non-selected persons having been made basis of the lodging of the first information report being violative of the government order dated 09.05.1997, the first information report is liable to be quashed.

¶12

Paragraph No.10 of the writ petition and Clause 2 (2) of the government order at page no.'100' of the paper book have been placed before us to submit that in case of any complaint against a Class I officer, in order to ensure the genuineness of the complaint, affidavit of the complainant was required to be taken before proceeding to take any further action. The contention is that the application of 18 persons, which is the basis of proceeding against the petitioner was not supported by any affidavit whatsoever. The consequential enquiry report, therefore, falls and the criminal action based on the preliminary enquiry report cannot be sustained.

¶13

This submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner do not detain us for long. Suffice is to note that a bare reading of the first information report clearly shows that the same had been lodged after conducing a vigilance enquiry in the matter of selection in-question.

¶14

In the vigilance enquiry on the complaint lodged by the nonselected persons, it was found that the members of the selection committee and the petitioner being the approving authority were guilty of making selection/appointment in a forged and biased manner in order to provide undue benefit to the selected persons.

¶15

As regards the government order dated 09.05.1997, we may note that the same has been issued as a guideline, as a check of unscrupulous complaints against Class I person of the various departments of the State.

¶16

Once the vigilance enquiry had been conducted under the decision of the State Vigilance Committee, the clause 2 (2) of the government order dated 09.05.1997 will have no application.

¶17

Even otherwise, on a pointed query made by the Court, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner could not place before us that the preliminary enquiry report had been challenged by the petitioner by moving any appropriate action before any Court of law.

¶18

For all the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Himanshu

¶20

Digitally signed by SUNITA Digitally signed by Sadhna Rani AGARWAL Thakur Date: 2021.09.07 11:48:38 IST Date: 2021.09.07 11:48:54 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

prof. akhilesh kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

prof. akhilesh kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar Vs the Court of Special Judge and 3 Others

Smt. Ruby and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu Shah Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohammad Yusuf Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Salman Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mantasa and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others