1 hr ago
Allahabad High Court Quashes Vigilance Inquiry Against IAS Officer
The Uttar Pradesh government had started an investigation against IAS officer Abhishek Prakash.
The investigation followed a complaint about an alleged bribe connected to a company’s proposed solar manufacturing project.
A private person named Nikant Jain was accused of acting as a middleman.
The person who made the complaint later said it had been filed because of a wrong impression.
The High Court had already canceled the case against Jain.
The court said the complaint was the foundation for the action against Prakash.
Because that foundation was removed, the court canceled the related proceedings.
It also said officials had not followed required procedures before starting the Vigilance inquiry.
The Allahabad High Court set aside Uttar Pradesh orders suspending IAS officer Abhishek Prakash and initiating disciplinary and Vigilance proceedings.
The proceedings followed a March 20, 2025 complaint alleging a bribe demand linked to approval of a solar-component manufacturing project.
The complainant later told the court he had filed the complaint under a wrong impression, prompting the court to reject the proceedings based on it.
The court said authorities acted hastily, without a supporting affidavit or State Vigilance Committee approval, and violated government procedures.
The state argued the complaint was genuine and that a Vigilance inquiry was permissible under a 1995 government order.
- Who
- IAS officer Abhishek Prakash, the Uttar Pradesh Government, a private-company official, and the Allahabad High Court.
- What
- The High Court set aside Prakash’s suspension, disciplinary proceedings, and Vigilance inquiry concerning alleged disproportionate assets.
- Where
- The ruling came from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court; the related police case was registered at Gomti Nagar police station in Lucknow.
- When
- The complaint was filed on March 20, 2025; the High Court issued its ruling on Thursday.
- Why
- The court found that the complaint underlying the proceedings had been admitted by its author to have been filed under a wrong impression and that required procedures were not followed.
Prakash’s challenge
State’s defense
Validity of the complaint
Prakash’s challenge
Prakash’s counsel argued that the complaint was false, based on conjectures and surmises, and that the complainant had later acknowledged filing it under a wrong impression.
State’s defense
The state argued that the company officials’ complaint was not fictitious and supported the continuation of action against Prakash.
Procedure for the Vigilance inquiry
Prakash’s challenge
Prakash’s counsel said the inquiry began without approval from the State Vigilance Committee and that authorities acted on the same day the complaint was filed.
State’s defense
The state relied on a 1995 government order, arguing that a Vigilance inquiry could be conducted after approval by the concerned minister following the prescribed process.
Reason for the project’s delay
Prakash’s challenge
Prakash’s counsel challenged the basis for linking the project’s treatment to misconduct, while the court found the project had been deferred for stated administrative reasons.
State’s defense
The state maintained that the complaint should be treated as a genuine allegation connected to the project’s approval process.
Key facts
- Officer
- Abhishek Prakash, a 2006-batch IAS officer
- Current posting
- Secretary, Department of General Administration
- Original position
- Secretary, Industry and Infrastructure Development Department, and Chief Executive Officer of Invest UP
- Complaint date
- March 20, 2025
- Allegation
- A demand for 5% of a proposed project to facilitate approval
- Accused intermediary
- Nikant Jain, whose related criminal case and chargesheet were quashed in February
- Court
- Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, presided over in this matter by Justice Rajeev Singh
- Court finding
- Authorities ordered proceedings without a supporting affidavit and without State Vigilance Committee approval
Quotes
Justice Rajeev Singh
Allahabad High Court judge who issued the order setting aside the proceedings against Abhishek Prakash
“Therefore, when a foundation goes, the rest of the edifice falls as per the principles of ‘Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus’. Once the complaint made by the official of the company is found to be false, as the complainant himself has admitted, the entire proceedings based upon the said complaint also fall.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Andhra Pradesh Orders Probe Into Suspended IPS Officer Sanjay
Patna High Court Quashes DSP’s Disproportionate Assets FIR
Allahabad High Court Questions Unexplained Settlement in Teacher’s Case
High Court Reinstates DSP Sandhu Over Lawrence Bishnoi Interview Dismissal
High Court Rejects Abhishek Banerjee FIR Plea, Limits Police Action
Rajasthan Acting CJ Denies Supreme Court Judge’s Allegations as Baseless
Uttar Pradesh Approves Toy Policy To Boost Jobs, Industry
AI Slowdown Hopes Could Lift Beaten-Down Indian Tech Stocks
Uttar Pradesh Invites Taiwanese Firms for Semiconductor Investments
Bhashini Uses AI Translation At UP-Japan Investment Summit
