The police have booked an MGNREGA mate for alleged financial irregularities of around ₹1.25 crore in the implementation of the rural employment guarantee scheme in Samchana village in Rohtak district.
The accused, Parveen Kumar, is a mate associated with MGNREGA works in Samchana gram panchayat. The case was registered following a complaint filed by Suresh Devi, assistant project officer and programme officer, MGNREGA.
The complainant alleged large-scale irregularities in MGNREGA wage payments, claiming several people named in the records told authorities they had never worked under the scheme.
It was alleged that during the inquiry, they came across a payment of ₹10,395 made in the name of a person who had died several years ago, raising questions over the authenticity of the records and the manner in which MGNREGA payments were processed.
The Ombudsman MGNREGA, Rohtak, had earlier recommended registration of an FIR against officials of the panchayat department posted at Sampla as well as other officials allegedly involved in the matter. The Ombudsman observed that similar irregularities could have occurred in 356 cases and tentatively assessed the financial loss at around ₹1.25 crore.
During the inquiry, officials examined bank statements of beneficiaries and detected a recurring pattern in transactions. MGNREGA wages credited through the public financial management system (PFMS) into the bank accounts of several beneficiaries were allegedly followed by transfers of money to the UPI number linked to Parveen Kumar.
{{/usCountry}}During the inquiry, officials examined bank statements of beneficiaries and detected a recurring pattern in transactions. MGNREGA wages credited through the public financial management system (PFMS) into the bank accounts of several beneficiaries were allegedly followed by transfers of money to the UPI number linked to Parveen Kumar.
{{/usCountry}}The inquiry recorded instances in which amounts were transferred to the same UPI number shortly after MGNREGA payments were credited to beneficiaries’ accounts. According to the findings, the pattern was not confined to a single beneficiary but appeared in the accounts of several persons.
The complainant alleged that a number of people shown as beneficiaries told the authorities that they had never performed any MGNREGA work. Even as the money was credited into their accounts and were allegedly transferred either through online transactions or withdrawn.