Sign in

Vigilance registers disproportionate assets case against former Firozabad tehsildar

The Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment’s Agra sector has registered a case against Naveen Kumar, former nayab tehsildar of Sirsaganj tehsil in Firozabad, for allegedly possessing disproportionate assets, with an open inquiry finding that his expenditure exceeded his known legal income by more than 55 lakh, confirmed senior vigilance officials

Published on: Sep 11, 2026, 07:59:00 IST
By , LUCKNOW
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

The Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment’s Agra sector has registered a case against Naveen Kumar, former nayab tehsildar of Sirsaganj tehsil in Firozabad, for allegedly possessing disproportionate assets, with an open inquiry finding that his expenditure exceeded his known legal income by more than 55 lakh, confirmed senior vigilance officials.

Article image

The FIR, registered on Thursday, invokes Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. The case was registered at the Vigilance Establishment’s Agra sector police station following directions from the state government’s Vigilance Department.

According to the FIR, an open inquiry against Kumar was ordered on July 22, 2024, after allegations relating to his assets. The final inquiry report was subsequently submitted to the government on March 10, 2026.

The inquiry assessed Kumar’s income from all known legitimate sources during the period under scrutiny at 31,69,951. Against this, his expenditure on acquisition of movable and immovable properties and maintenance was calculated at 86,70,886. This resulted in an alleged excess expenditure of 55,00,935, which the inquiry found disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The FIR states that Kumar did not furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the disproportionate expenditure and acquisition of assets. The inquiry consequently found him prima facie liable for an offence under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.