A case was also lodged at Lucknow’s Gomti Nagar police station against Jain, and he was arrested and sent to jail. However, the case and chargesheet against him was quashed by the High Court in February on the basis of the complainant’s affidavit stating he had filed the complaint under wrong impression.
In its Thursday order, a single bench of Justice Rajeev Singh cited the High Court’s February decision and observed that the complainant himself admitted in his affidavit filed before this Court in the case of Nikant Jain that the complaint was filed under wrong impression.
It added, “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.”
The bench ordered to set aside the state government orders issued in March last year of Abhishek Prakash’s suspension, disciplinary proceedings, and the entire Vigilance inquiry opened against him. Prakash had filed a writ petition praying for setting aside of the proceedings against him.
The case
Prakash’s counsel submitted before the court that the petitioner, an IAS officer of 2006 batch, was posted as Secretary, Department of Industry and Infrastructure Development, and Chief Executive Officer, Invest UP, when a complaint was filed by one Biswajit Datta, official of SAEL, Solar P6 Private Limited on March 20, 2025. The complaint was filed with the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, stating that his company was willing to establish a unit for manufacturing parts to be used in solar cell and solar energy, and an online application was submitted before Invest UP.
Story continues below this ad
The request for this proposed project was being considered in the meeting of the Evaluation Committee of Invest UP. It was alleged that a senior officer of Invest UP had given a mobile number of a private person, Nikant Jain, stating the application of the company would be approved by the Empowered Committee and the Cabinet only after go ahead given by Jain, the counsel submitted.
He further submitted that the complaint alleged upon Jain demanded 5 per cent of the project to facilitate the approval of the application, which was refused by the Company. Thereafter, it came into notice that despite approval, his case was deferred, and later on, Jain told him that without him, his project will not be approved, and also requested for approval of the project, the counsel stated.
The submission stated that the state government ordered the disciplinary proceeding the same day the complaint was filed, and suspended the petitioner, as well. In March last year, the Vigilance inquiry against the petitioner with regard to his alleged disproportionate assets, merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The counsel submitted that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was pending, and that the Vigilance inquiry was initiated against him without any approval from the State Vigilance Committee.
The counsel for the state opposed the prayer of the petitioner, and submitted that the complaint made by the officials of the company is not a fictitious one. As per a 1995 government order, Vigilance inquiry can be conducted after the decision of the State Vigilance Committee approved by the concerned Minister.
The judgment
Story continues below this ad
After submissions, the bench of Justice Singh, cited government orders from 1991 to 2018 which stated that the requirement of an affidavit in support of the complaint was incorporated solely to protect honest officers from being victimised on the basis of fictitious or false complaints.
In the present case, the court stated, no affidavit was filed in support of the complaint. However, in the most hasty manner, on the very same date of the complaint, a Vigilance inquiry was ordered and departmental proceedings initiated, and an FIR was also lodged against Nikant Jain. The government orders of 1991 and 1995 were also violated by the authorities. Once the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, the authorities, without awaiting the outcome thereof, referred the vigilance matter to the Vigilance Department for inquiry, without placing the matter before the State Vigilance Committee for its approval, the bench stated.
It added, the original record of the Evaluation Committee of Invest UP was also considered. It was found that on March 12 last year, the case of the company was deferred, as the Chief Executive Officer, YEIDA, had addressed a letter to the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Invest UP, stating that, after purchasing 200 acres of land from the farmers, the same would be provided to the company by April 30. A rebate on electricity charges had also been claimed, and a report in this regard was also sought from UPPCL.
The bench stated that it is also evident that the proposal of the official company was never deferred without any reasoning, as the land was available by April 2025.
