The Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (APSHRC) has ruled that the state’s Vigilance Department’s denial of a clearance certificate to a senior forest officer is a prima facie case of discrimination. The commission directed the state government to ensure time-bound processing of vigilance clearances and Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs). The ruling was made by APSHRC Chairperson Bamang Tago while disposing of a complaint filed by Deputy Conservator of Forests Mori Riba.
Riba had approached the commission alleging that the Vigilance Department arbitrarily denied him the clearance needed for induction into the Indian Forest Service (IFS). The complaint was disposed of after the Vigilance Department issued Riba’s clearance on January 5 this year. Riba stated that the denial was associated with an FIR filed by three IAS officers against members of a land compensation assessment board for alleged inflated compensation.
He claimed that no chargesheet, suspension, or disciplinary action had been initiated against any board member in three years, while other officers in the same case were granted clearance and promotions. The court observed that the denial appears to be in contravention of the guidelines of the AP Vigilance Clearance Manual/CVC Guidelines and amounts to infringement of rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The commission further observed that the matter had been pending since June 24, 2024, without disposal, contravening CVC guidelines.
The commission stated that vigilance clearance is intended to safeguard the integrity of public administration and not to operate as an indefinite impediment to career advancement. Authorities entrusted with such responsibilities are expected to process vigilance-related matters expeditiously and strictly in conformity with the applicable rules, guidelines, and administrative instructions. The court also observed that every eligible employee possesses a right to be considered for promotion fairly, objectively, and within a reasonable period.
Riba stated that a complaint was lodged regarding the non-conduct of DPCs for IFS induction against select lists of 2020, 2021, and 2022. He claimed that six DCFs retired on superannuation without IFS induction due to DPCs not being held on time. The court observed that unwarranted delays in convening DPCs may adversely affect service rights, morale, and administrative efficiency.
The commission recommended that the government ensure that DPCs are convened regularly within prescribed timelines, and that the Vigilance Department establish a time-bound mechanism for processing clearance requests in line with the Vigilance Manual. It also directed administrative departments to maintain effective coordination with the Vigilance Department before DPCs, and asked the competent authority to review pending vigilance cases periodically to prevent unnecessary delay. The commission further directed the government to issue instructions to all departments for timely DPCs and speedy clearances to uphold fairness and equal opportunity.
