Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench Quashes Vigilance Probe Against IAS Officer Abhishek Prakash
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench has granted major relief to IAS officer Abhishek Prakash, quashing an open vigilance inquiry that followed a complaint alleging irregularities in the processing of an industrial project. Justice Rajeev Singh allowed Prakash’s writ petition and set aside government orders dated 20 and 28 March 2025 along with the entire vigilance proceedings.
The dispute began with a 20 March 2025 complaint by a company official. The complainant alleged that a senior Invest UP official shared the mobile number of Nikant Jain and asked him to approach Jain for project clearances before the empowered committee and the cabinet, and that Jain demanded five per cent of the project cost. An FIR was lodged against Jain, while departmental action moved against Prakash.
Why the court struck down the inquiry
A decisive turn came when company official Biswajit Dutta filed an affidavit in related proceedings stating that the complaint had been made due to a misunderstanding. He later learnt that the project was awaiting land-availability and other inputs from YEIDA and UPPCL — not a clearance blocked by personal influence.
Senior advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for Prakash, argued that starting a vigilance inquiry on a complaint without a supporting affidavit and without State Vigilance Committee approval, as required under government orders for Group-A officers, was contrary to procedure. The bench noted that the affidavit requirement exists precisely to protect honest officers from harassment based on unverified accusations. Once the complainant himself admitted misunderstanding, the court held, the foundation of the vigilance case stood extinguished.
Chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh, assisted by standing counsel Aniruddh Singh, opposed the petition, but the Lucknow bench ruled for the officer.
Governance signal for Lucknow’s investment desk
Invest UP files, YEIDA land answers and UPPCL clearances sit at the heart of how industrial proposals move through the state capital’s bureaucracy. Quashing a vigilance probe after a retracted complaint will be read carefully inside secretariat corridors already watching other high-stakes accountability stories, including the Allahabad HC SC/ST Act ruling on caste-alone disputes and the chief minister’s recent emphasis on institutional trust at the Lokayukta address in Lucknow.
For citizens and investors, the judgment is less about one officer’s file and more about process: complaints against senior officers must meet affidavit and committee thresholds, or they risk collapsing when the complainant’s own story changes. The court has drawn that line clearly from the Lucknow bench.
