The Modi government has instructed all the IAS officers to declare their assets which includes income and property details, failing which they would be denied vigilance clearances which is necessary for promotions and foreign postings.

This has been conveyed in a letter sent by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to the states, Central government departments and union territories, asking them to ensure that the IAS officers submit their Immovable Property Returns (IPRs) before 31st January, 2018.

The DoPT in its instructions dated 4th April, 2011, had stated that vigilance clearance will be denied in case of non submission of IPRs and as per a DoPT official, those who don’t submit property details on time won’t be considered for any Central government posts, including foreign postings.

In order to help these IAS officials file these returns, an online module has been designed where these officers can upload a copy of their returns.

- Advertisement -

As per latest data, there are about 5,004 IAS officers in the country and as reported, about 1,856 IAS officers had failed to submit their returns for 2016.

Out of these 1,856, IAS officers from Uttar Pradesh ranked number one in not submitting their returns, totalling at about 255. Apart from this, 153 officers from Rajasthan, 118 from Madhya Pradesh, 109 from West Bengal and 104 from Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre failed to file their returns.

In 2014 and 2015 the figure of non-return filing IAS officers stood at about 1,527 and 1,537 respectively.

Apart from filing such returns. the IAS officers also have to take permission before accepting gifts above Rs 5,000. They also have to inform the government, in case they accept gifts from family and friends exceeding Rs 25,000.

We had recently reported how 12 out of 25 Supreme Court judges too had failed to make their financial assets public. 8 years ago, the Supreme Court had passed a resolution which called for such a measure.

Such a disclosure though wasn’t made mandatory, which might be one of the reasons why the judicial luminaries had decided not to comply with this exercise.