MGNREGA Fund Misappropriation: High Court Slams Haryana For 3-Year Inaction, Warns Of Independent Probe

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticised the Haryana authorities for taking no action for over three years on a MGNREGA Ombudsman's report that recorded diversion and misappropriation of funds and directed registration of an FIR. It said the authorities "woke up from their deep slumber" only after a public interest litigation was filed.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor directed the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, to appear in person with the records. It warned that if it was not satisfied with the action proposed, it would consider referring the matter to an independent agency for investigation.

"If matters involving allegations of financial misappropriation are dealt with in such a manner by the senior-most officers of the District Administration, there is every likelihood that such instances would go unattended and ultimately result in no meaningful action being taken."

The PIL concerns alleged irregularities in implementing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Block Sampla, District Rohtak. The Court noted that the Ombudsman appointed under the scheme had submitted a report in 2023 recording findings of diversion and misappropriation of funds by the authorities responsible for implementing it. The report also directed that an FIR be registered and the matter investigated.

On 01.09.2026, the Court noted that despite the Ombudsman's report and a preliminary report substantiating the diversion, no FIR had been lodged and no action taken. It directed the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, to examine the matter and file a personal affidavit on its status.

In his affidavit dated 18.09.2026, the Deputy Commissioner stated that a complaint was received in 2023 from the Haryana Home Minister's office, routed through the MGNREGA Commissioner, and was referred to the Ombudsman, District Rohtak. The Ombudsman had then directed the Chief Executive Officer, DRDA, Rohtak, to register an FIR against the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and other erring officials of Block Sampla.

Annexed to the affidavit was an inquiry report by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sampla, which the Court said "completely gives a clean chit" to the block-level authorities and exonerates them. An FIR was, however, lodged against one individual connected with Gram Panchayat Samchana, Block Sampla.

The petitioners also filed an application stating that petitioner No. 1, Ram Chander, aged about 72, was physically assaulted when he visited the SDO's office. A photograph said to support the allegation was annexed.

The Bench held that no action had been taken on the Lokpal's recommendations for more than three years. Only after the PIL was filed and the Court issued directions was an FIR registered, in September 2026, and that too against one individual. Meanwhile, "the officers specifically implicated in the report of the MNREGA Lokpal have not been proceeded against."

The Bench said the manner in which the affidavit was filed "leaves much to be desired." It noted that the Deputy Commissioner's affidavit "basically relies upon the same Officer against whom the allegations were made", and found "an apparent lack of application of mind" in it. It said the State would do well to sensitise its officers to deal with such matters "with the seriousness and promptitude they warrant."

The Court directed that its order be placed immediately before the Chief Secretary, Haryana, who must depute the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, to appear before the Court with the relevant records on the next date. It said it would consider referring the matter to an independent agency if not satisfied with the action the respondents propose.

The matter is listed on October 15.

Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Gurneet Saggo, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondents-UOI.

Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, Ms. Savita Chahar, Advocate, and Mr. Mahesh Inder Preet, Advocate, for respondent No.12.