In a major relief to IAS officer Abhishek Prakash, the Allahabad High Court quashed the vigilance inquiry initiated against him in connection with a complaint alleging irregularities in the processing of an industrial project.
A Lucknow bench of Justice Rajeev Singh allowed Prakash's writ petition and quashed the orders issued by the government on March 20 and March 28, 2025, along with the entire proceedings of open vigilance inquiry.
The complainant alleged that a senior official of Invest UP had provided him the mobile number of Nikant Jain and asked him to contact Jain for approval of the project by the Empowered Committee and the Cabinet.
The complainant further alleged that Jain had demanded 5% of the project cost.
What is the case?
An FIR was subsequently lodged against Jain, while departmental proceedings were initiated against Prakash. A letter seeking a vigilance inquiry against Prakash was also sent on the same day.
A significant development came when company official Biswajit Dutta, in an affidavit filed before the high court in the case concerning Jain, stated that the complaint dated March 20, 2025, had been made due to confusion and misunderstanding.
He subsequently learnt that the project was awaiting information relating to land availability and other issues from YEIDA and UPPCL.
After the requisite information was incorporated, the proposal was recommended for consideration by a High-Level Empowered Committee on March 25, 2025.
The company had applied to Invest UP on December 3, 2024, for setting up a solar cell and solar module manufacturing unit.
The proposal was considered in meetings of the Evaluation Committee held on February 24, March 12 and March 25, 2025.
At the March 12 meeting, further information relating to land and electricity-related concessions was sought. The proposal was subsequently recommended for placement before the High-Level Empowered Committee at the March 25, 2025.
Senior advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for Prakash, argued that the company's project had remained under consideration before the Evaluation Committee and was ultimately recommended for placement before the High-Level Empowered Committee on March 25, 2025.
Complaint was made due to misunderstanding
He pointed out that the complainant himself had subsequently filed an affidavit before the high court stating that the complaint had arisen out of a misunderstanding. Mehrotra argued that initiating a vigilance inquiry on the basis of a complaint unsupported by an affidavit, and without obtaining the approval of the State Vigilance Committee in accordance with the prescribed procedure, was contrary to the relevant government orders.
Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh opposed the petition. The standing counsel argued that, considering the gravity of the allegations, the administrative department had decided to order a vigilance inquiry.
It contended that the complaint by the company official could not simply be treated as fictitious and that a vigilance inquiry could be conducted in accordance with the relevant government orders.
The state also acknowledged that the 1997 government order had been issued to discourage fictitious complaints against Group-A officers, while the complainant had subsequently stated that his complaint was made due to a misunderstanding.
Pronouncing the verdict , the bench observed that the requirement of an affidavit accompanying complaints against Group-A officers had been prescribed to protect honest officers from harassment on the basis of false or fictitious complaints.
The court further found that despite departmental proceedings having been initiated, the authorities proceeded to refer the matter for a vigilance inquiry without awaiting their outcome and without obtaining approval from the State Vigilance Committee in the prescribed manner.
The court held that once the complainant himself had subsequently admitted that the complaint was made due to a misunderstanding, the very basis of the proceedings founded on that complaint stood extinguished. It accordingly quashed the government orders and the entire vigilance inquiry against Prakash.
Alok Mathur is a law graduate. Journalism is his first love which he now pursues in the latter half of his career. Controversies and crime are the right triggers for him.
