Aligarh: Allegations of misuse of public funds, irregular payments and an inadequate departmental inquiry in Lahra Salempur Gram Panchayat, Bijouli block, have raised serious questions. Complainant Vishnu Gupta says payment records, vouchers, screenshots, technical material relating to GST cancellation and an affidavit-backed complaint were submitted to officials, yet the visible departmental action was limited to one firm.
Complaint dated 1 June 2026 and three IGRS references
According to the complainant, an affidavit-backed complaint submitted on 1 June 2026 sought a physical site inquiry into alleged misuse of government money, questionable payments, poor construction, material-supply irregularities, payments linked to a cancelled GST registration and the roles of the Gram Pradhan, Secretary and officials or employees who approved payments. IGRS references 40014326024869, 40014326026625 and 40014326027062 were subsequently registered.
Objection to the DPRO report dated 27 June
The complainant has challenged the report communicated through District Panchayat Raj Officer, Aligarh letter no. 1953/7/पं०/आई०जी०आर०एस०/आख्या/2026-27 dated 27 June 2026, describing it as incomplete and one-sided and alleging that it did not adequately examine the role of the principal decision-makers. He has requested that the report be set aside and the complaint reopened.
Questions about the inquiry process
The complainant says a team involving the District Agriculture Officer, an Executive Engineer and an ADO was constituted, but he was not contacted, his statement was not recorded, the submitted evidence was not examined in his presence and the inquiry report was not supplied to him. He alleges that paperwork was preferred over an open physical verification.
Why was accountability not extended to payment approvers?
Questions have also been raised about district-level supervision. The complainant argues that if a payment was made from a Gram Panchayat account through a government portal and DSC-based approval process, the roles of the Pradhan, Secretary and the administrative or technical officials who enabled the transaction should also be examined rather than limiting action to a vendor.
G.D. Construction and the cancelled GST allegation
The complaint refers to G.D. Construction. The supplied GST-status screenshot displays GSTIN 09GZTPD5065G1ZV, trade name M/S G.D. CONSTRUCTION and status Cancelled suo-moto, effective from 20/05/2024. The complainant alleges that payments continued after the cancellation and that the questioned payments reached approximately ₹86 lakh. This claim requires an independent record-based inquiry.
The inquiry should not be confined to GST
The complainant says the matter should not be reduced to a GST issue. Construction quality, actual supply of material, measurement books, invoices, vouchers, site verification, the payment-approval chain and the actual use of public funds should also be examined.
Fresh payment of ₹6.81 lakh during the inquiry
Another allegation concerns a payment of ₹6,81,000 made from the Gram Panchayat account on 25 June 2026 through five vouchers to “Aadhya Associates” while the inquiry was under way. The complainant says screenshots and details were shared with the Chief Development Officer on the same day, but he has not been informed of an effective freeze or technical audit.
Demand for a technical audit
The complainant has requested identification of the order authorising the 25 June payment, the user ID and IP address used, the DSC that approved it, the invoices and vouchers uploaded and any discrepancy between bank transfers and portal entries.
Questions about Panchayat member contact details
The complainant says the Panchayat profile names 15 members but appears to use only three email addresses and two mobile numbers. He seeks verification of whether statements were actually recorded from all members or whether the record reflects only a formal exercise.
IGRS disposal and demand for an independent inquiry
The complainant alleges that serious financial and administrative questions are being closed through IGRS reports rather than resolved through evidence-based investigation. He has sought an independent senior-level physical inspection in his presence, statements from Panchayat members, a technical audit of payments, examination of the roles of the Pradhan, Secretary, officials, firms and inquiry team, and—where wrongdoing is established—recovery, suspension, FIR and other legal action.
Key questions for the administration
- Was every submitted item of evidence examined and answered?
- How were payments linked to a cancelled GST registration approved?
- Which user ID, IP address and DSC were used in the payment process?
- Why was a fresh payment made during the inquiry and why was it not stopped?
- Why did visible action remain limited to one firm?
- At what level will accountability of the Pradhan, Secretary and approving officials be fixed?
Documentary material supplied
