The Madhya Pradesh government has failed to take any action against eight government officers including four District Magistrates in Madhya Pradesh (MP) who were found involved in corruption in NREGA projects worth around Rs 255 crore.

MP based social activist Ajay Dubey obtained this information by filing RTI applications with the state’s General Administration Department (GAD) and the Employment Guarantee Council. Dubey sought the details of all those officers in the panchayat and rural development department who were found involved in corruption in NREGA projects.

The GAD gave information only about two officers- Sukhbir Singh, DM, Satna district and Borkar Chandrashekhar Namdev, DM, Dindori.

In 2008, Pradeep Bhargava, then additional chief secretary, Panchayat and Rural development department had found both guilty of irregularities in NREGA. Bhargava had also recommended disciplinary action against the two.

The irregularities were done when both of them were posted in Sidhi district- Singh was the DM and Namdev, the chief executive officer of the district panchayat.

However, the Employment Guarantee Council gave details of six more officers involved in corruption. This includes Bhind DM S.S. Ali and Tikamgarh DM K.P. Rahi.

According to the information, more than 30, 000 projects worth Rs 255. 87 crore were executed through panchayats in 2006 -07. On receiving complaints, the Employment Guarantee Council conducted investigations in 694 panchayats. It was found that 155 works were done without administrative and technical approval. Around 2400 works were done without technical approval. Amount of Rs 8. 63 crore needed to be recovered as the works done in 488 village panchayats were found to be unsatisfactory. No verification was carried out in 41 works worth Rs 38. 48 lakh.

In the period of two years, the GAD wrote 12 times to the panchayat and rural development department for case files so that action could be taken against the two. But the files were never received.

The GAD had initially refused to give information to the RTI applicant citing that it was a confidential document. The applicant then approached the State Information Commission which directed the GAD to provide the information.