Lucknow, June 9 -- The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has sought a personal affidavit from the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary and directed the additional chief secretary (Home) to explain why action should not be taken against him, after finding his affidavit in a monitored criminal investigation to be "completely casual" and lacking seriousness. A division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava passed the order on May 20, which was uploaded recently. The court was hearing a petition filed by Gayatri Devi seeking a fair investigation into an FIR registered at the PGI police station, Lucknow, in January 2025, in connection with a case of forgery and death threats. The court further directed the ACS (Home) to file a show-cause reply, explaining why action should not be recommended against him under the applicable service rules. It warned that if the reply is not filed, he would have to appear personally before the court along with the records. The court said the "helplessness" expressed by officials over their inability to arrest accused persons is not acceptable. The bench noted that despite being granted an opportunity through an earlier order, the ACS (Home) had failed to satisfactorily address concerns raised by the court regarding the investigation. Observing that the officer had "..apparently failed to redress himself," the court said his conduct prima facie suggested that he did not even care about the directions issued by the court. The court also directed the chief secretary to file a personal affidavit and warned that if the affidavit is not filed, he will have to appear before the court. The next hearing is on July 15. The petition concerns an FIR (first information report) lodged on January 9, 2025. Earlier, proceedings showed that on May 23, 2025, the investigating officer had assured the high court that the petitioner's grievances would be addressed within three days. However, when the matter was taken up again, the court found that more than a year had passed and the petitioner continued to seek redress. In a previous order reproduced in the present order, the bench remarked that the authorities appeared to be "sitting and twiddling their thumbs day in and day out" despite the case being under judicial scrutiny. The court had also observed that although serious penal provisions had been added against several accused persons, the investigation had not been taken to its logical conclusion. According to the affidavit placed before the court, two accused persons, Gaurav Awasthi and Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, were arrested only in April 2026, while four other accused persons remained untraced. The bench noted that these arrests took place only after it passed a detailed order on April 13, 2026. "This itself speaks volumes about the conduct and about the quality of the investigation on the part of the respondent-authorities," the court observed. The bench also took exception to the appearance of deputy commissioner of Police (South), Lucknow, Amit Kumar Aanand on May 20 before it. The officer informed the court that he had appeared pursuant to a letter issued by special secretary Mahendra Singh directing him to remain present and explain the progress of the investigation. The high court noted that its previous order only required the filing of a personal affidavit by the ACS (Home). Personal appearance had been directed only in the event that such an affidavit was not filed, the court said. Questioning the basis for sending the police officer, the court observed that the special secretary's directive caused him to leave his office and miss scheduled public hearings. The chief secretary has now been asked to explain the circumstances under which the deputy commissioner of police was directed to appear and why action should not be taken against the special secretary for issuing such directions despite there being no court order requiring the officer's presence....