The Allahabad High Court has struck down an open vigilance inquiry and related administrative orders issued against Indian Administrative Service officer Abhishek Prakash, ruling that the basis of the probe ceased to exist after the complainant formally withdrew the underlying allegations as a misunderstanding.
Delivering the order on a writ petition filed by Prakash, Justice Rajeev Singh of the high court’s Lucknow bench cancelled the state government’s directives dated March 20 and March 28, 2025, which had set the vigilance investigation in motion.
The court highlighted that established administrative guidelines requiring complaints against Group-A officers to be supported by an affidavit are designed to protect honest civil servants from harassment stemming from fictitious accusations. The bench noted that state authorities ordered the vigilance probe without securing the necessary approval from the State Vigilance Committee in accordance with prescribed norms, and without awaiting the conclusion of departmental proceedings that were already initiated.
Origins Of The Project Complaint
The controversy began on March 20, 2025, when a representative from a private enterprise submitted a grievance regarding clearance procedures for an industrial project. The firm had submitted an application to Invest UP on December 3, 2024, seeking approvals to establish a manufacturing plant for solar cells and solar modules.
According to the initial complaint, a senior Invest UP official shared the contact information of an individual identified as Nikant Jain, directing the firm to coordinate with him to secure required approvals from both the Empowered Committee and the state cabinet. The representative alleged that Jain sought a commission amounting to five per cent of the total project expenditure.
Following the submission, police registered a first information report against Jain. State authorities simultaneously launched departmental proceedings against Prakash and issued a formal communication that same day seeking an open vigilance inquiry into his conduct.
Project Clearance Timeline And Retraction
Records placed before the court detailed the routine administrative stages of the solar manufacturing proposal. An Evaluation Committee examined the project across three separate sittings on February 24, March 12, and March 25, 2025.
During the March 12 session, officials requested supplemental documentation concerning land allocation and power-related concessions from the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. Once those details were supplied, the committee recommended the application on March 25 for consideration by a High-Level Empowered Committee.
The legal standing of the complaint shifted significantly when company official Biswajit Dutta submitted a sworn affidavit before the high court in proceedings relating to Jain. Dutta stated that his initial communication of March 20, 2025, stemmed from confusion and a lack of complete information. He stated that he later realized the application had simply been paused while waiting for technical inputs regarding land availability and related clearances from YEIDA and UPPCL before advancing to the high-level committee.
Arguments Before The Bench
Senior advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, representing Prakash, contended that the industrial proposal followed regular bureaucratic procedures, culminating in a positive recommendation on March 25. Mehrotra argued that government orders mandate that complaints against senior officers be accompanied by affidavits and processed through the State Vigilance Committee. Because neither protocol was observed, and given the complainant’s subsequent sworn retraction, Mehrotra submitted that the probe lacked any legal foundation.
Opposing the petition, Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh maintained that the administrative wing ordered the inquiry due to the seriousness of the initial claims. The state argued that the complaint could not be dismissed out of hand as fictitious at the time it was received, asserting that the investigation conformed to official guidelines.
The state acknowledged, however, that a 1997 government directive was enacted specifically to shield Group-A officers from unsubstantiated claims, and recognized that the complainant had subsequently clarified that the grievance arose from an administrative misunderstanding.
Judicial Findings
In its ruling, the bench determined that administrative authorities bypassed procedural safeguards by referring the matter for a vigilance probe without obtaining clearance from the State Vigilance Committee and without waiting for the outcome of departmental scrutiny.
The court ruled that because the complainant formally declared the grievance to be the result of an error regarding standard project processing delays, the foundation of the government’s punitive action collapsed. Consequently, the court quashed the government orders and all associated vigilance inquiry proceedings.
