ITANAGAR, 23 Jun: The Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (APSHRC) ruled that the state’s Vigilance Department’s denial of a clearance certificate to a senior forest officer of the state is a prima facie case of discrimination, and directed the state government to ensure “time-bound processing of vigilance clearances and Departmental Promotion Committees.”
The single-bench court of APSHRC Chairperson Bamang Tago ruled this while disposing of a complaint filed by Deputy Conservator of Forests Mori Riba.
Riba had approached the commission on 13 August,2025, alleging that the Vigilance Department arbitrarily denied him the clearance needed for induction into the IFS.
The complaint was disposed of following the Vigilance Department’s issuance of Riba’s clearance on 5 January this year during the proceeding.
He stated that the denial was associated with an FIR filed on 20 June, 2022, by three IAS officers against members of a land compensation assessment board for alleged inflated compensation. Riba was also one of the board members.
He stated also that no chargesheet, suspension, or disciplinary action had been initiated against any board member in three years. However, 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 24 June, 2024 without disposal, contravening CVC guidelines.
“The commission is of the considered opinion 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.
“It is a settled principle that while promotion itself may not constitute a fundamental right, every eligible employee possesses a right to be considered for promotion fairly, objectively and within a reasonable period,” the court observed.
Riba stated also that a complaint was lodged regarding the non-conduct of DPCs for IFS induction against select lists of 2020, 2021 and 2022. He stated that six DCFs retired on superannuation without IFS induction due to DPCs not being held on time.
The court observed: “Unwarranted delays in convening DPCs may adversely affect service rights, morale and administrative efficiency,” and added that delays “may adversely affect equal opportunity and result in unequal treatment among similarly situated officers.”
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.
