IN A shocking disclosure, an enquiry report has put an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Shubham Gupta in the dock over the charges of financial irregularities during his tenure as Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project (ITDP), Bhamragarh in Gadchiroli district. The report prepared by the office of Additional Commissioner (Tribal Development), Nagpur, has recommended to the Secretary of Tribal Development Department to reject the clarifications given by Gupta, who was Project Officer of ITDP at Bhamragarh in 2022-23. A controversy had erupted in 2023 when two MLAs namely Sanjay Kelkar and Shweta Mahale had alleged irregularities in implementation of the Nucleus Budget Scheme under ITDP, Bhamragarh. Dr Vijaykumar Gavit, Tribal Development Minister, had directed Commissioner (Tribal Development), Nashik, to conduct in-depth probe into the matter and submit a detailed report. After that, the department recorded the statements of various staffers at ITDP, Bhamragarh, and also the beneficiaries whose names came on record. Under the Nucleus Budget Scheme, cows and buffalos were to be distributed to the tribal beneficiaries. The staffers at ITDP Bhamragarh reported that they issued clearances ‘under pressure’ from the then Project Officer. Also, several allegations surfaced during the probe.

 

These included allocating Rs 1 lakh per beneficiary as against the financial ceiling of Rs 50,000/-, cheating of beneficiaries, creation of back-dated records, payment of variable amounts of money to beneficiaries to keep mum etc. The probe committee submitted its report to the State Government in August 2023. The Government sought clarification in this regard from Shubham Gupta, who submitted the same on November 1, 2023. Following that, the Government sought a ‘clear opinion’ from the office of the Additional Commissioner (Tribal Development), Nagpur over Gupta’s clarification. Accordingly, in March 2024, the said office submitted its opinion to Secretary of Tribal Development Department. In the said letter-cum-report, a copy of which is with ‘The Hitavada’, the Additional Commissioner (Tribal Development), Nagpur, recommended rejection of the clarifications/explanations offered by Gupta. Also, it mentioned that the then Project Officer of Bhamragarh had exerted pressure on Ajay Pungati, Tribal Development Inspector, and Manoj Sayam, Senior Clerk, ‘to get wrong works done’.

 

“Since Gupta did not take cognisance of the facts brought to his notice on record, the psychology of committing irregularities becomes clear. The employees in the Project Office could not act against the orders of the IAS officer, is a fact. Pungati and Sayam being field staffers, come in contact with the beneficiaries and some beneficiaries have expressed their discontent against both...,” stated the report. While the IAS officer currently posted as Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad Municipal Commissioner accused his erstwhile subordinates at ITDP office in Bhamragarh, the Additional Commissioner (Tribal Development) has rejected his explanations. Also, the letter-cum-report pointed out that at least nine beneficiaries were paid some cash amount as they refused to take the cow provided to them under the scheme citing the reason that the cows were not in a condition to survive.

 

Further, amount deposited in the bank accounts of some beneficiaries was withdrawn or diverted to another account by way of securing their thumb-print. When the beneficiaries raised voice, those engaged to withdraw the amount paid the beneficiaries amount varying from Rs 20,000/- to Rs 35,000/- purportedly for ‘cattle feed’ even when there was no such provision in the scheme guidelines. In case of two beneficiaries, their photographs were taken with the cows they already owned. Though amount of Rs 2 lakh was sanctioned for them, they were paid Rs 20,000/- without giving them the benefit of the scheme. “Thus, it is clear that the beneficiaries were paid some money to ensure that they kept mum,” observed the letter-cum-report. According to sources, the department is in the process of translating the entire enquiry report into English so that it could be sent to the Central Government for ‘appropriate action’. However, the officials were tight-lipped about what that ‘appropriate action’ could be or what action has been recommended by the State Government.