The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticised Haryana’s authorities for sitting on an Ombudsman report on MGNREGA misappropriation for over three years, and has warned that it may refer the matter to an independent agency.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: In a public interest litigation concerning the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Block Sampla, District Rohtak, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has found no meaningful action on the MGNREGA Lokpal’s recommendations for more than three years, termed the Deputy Commissioner’s affidavit wanting, and directed that the Deputy Commissioner appear in person on the next date [Ram Chander and Another v. State of Haryana and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the interim order on 8 October 2026. The Court has expressed no final view on the allegations of misappropriation, which are findings and claims yet to be tested, and the case is listed again on 15 October.
The case
The Bench noted that the Ombudsman/Lokpal appointed under the MNREGA Scheme submitted a report as far back as 2023 recording findings of diversion and misappropriation of funds by the authorities entrusted with implementing the Scheme, along with a direction to register an FIR and investigate. It recorded that nothing appeared to have been done until the PIL was filed.
It is only after filing of the present PIL petition that the authorities have woken up from their deep slumber.
On 1 September 2026, the Court had called upon the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, to examine the matter and file a personal affidavit on the status of action, noting that neither an FIR had been lodged nor any action taken despite the Ombudsman’s 2023 report and a preliminary report substantiating the diversion.
The Deputy Commissioner’s affidavit
In an affidavit dated 18 September 2026, the Deputy Commissioner stated that a complaint received in 2023 was referred to the Ombudsman MGNREGA, who directed the Chief Executive Officer, DRDA, Rohtak to register an FIR against the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer and other officials of Block Sampla. An enquiry report by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sampla, annexed to the affidavit, gave a clean chit to the block-level authorities. An FIR was lodged in September 2026 against one individual connected with Gram Panchayat Samchana.
What the Court said
The Bench pointed out that the officers specifically implicated in the Lokpal’s report have not been proceeded against, and that the manner in which the affidavit was filed “leaves much to be desired”. It said the affidavit basically relied upon the same officer against whom the allegations were made and showed an apparent lack of application of mind.
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 State would, therefore, do well to sensitize its officers to deal with such matters with the seriousness and promptitude they warrant.
The directions
The Court directed that its order be placed immediately before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, who is to depute the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak to remain present before the Court with the relevant records on the next date of hearing, 15 October 2026.
In case the Court is not satisfied with the proposed action to be taken by the respondents, then this Court would consider referring the matter to an independent agency for investigation.
The Bench also took note of an application in which the petitioners claim that petitioner No. 1, Ram Chander, aged about 72, was physically assaulted when he visited the SDO’s office, and that a photograph in support has been annexed. This is a claim made by the petitioners, and the order records no finding on it.
Why the order matters
The order shows the High Court using a PIL to test whether statutory oversight under a welfare scheme leads to action on the ground. A Lokpal’s findings and direction for an FIR carry little weight if the administration does not follow them up, and the Court’s concern is as much with the delay and the quality of the district administration’s response as with the underlying allegations.
The State’s position is not yet fully before the Court: its officers’ enquiry report found no fault at block level, and the Court has asked for the Deputy Commissioner’s personal appearance before deciding whether an independent agency should take over. The allegations of diversion of funds remain untested, and no person has been held liable.
Case Title: Ram Chander and Another v. State of Haryana and Others [CWP-PIL-222-2026 (O&M)]
Bench: Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Order: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Advocate G.S. Gopera for the petitioners; Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan for the State of Haryana; Senior Advocate Dheeraj Jain, with Central Government Counsel Gurneet Saggo, for the Union of India; advocates S.P. Chahar, Savita Chahar and Mahesh Inder Preet for respondent No. 12.