Chandigarh Bank Fraud Turns a Blessing in Disguise for Gram Panchayat Badhana (Jind)
Gustakhi Maaf Haryana – Pawan Kumar Bansal
(By our enlightened reader and journalist Ramkumar Tusir)
In an unexpected turn of events, the much-discussed Chandigarh bank fraud episode has reportedly brought relief to Gram Panchayat Badhana in Alewa block of Jind district.
Under the widening project of the Jind–Safidon State Highway, the government acquired approximately 38 acres of shamlat (common) land belonging to Badhana village. The land was to be transferred to the Forest Department for development as a protected forest area. In return, the Gram Panchayat received a compensation amount of ₹8.67 crore.
As per state rules and a formal resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, the compensation amount was to be deposited in the Panchayat’s account in the Cooperative Bank at Alewa. However, it is alleged that under pressure from a prominent ruling party politician, the funds were instead deposited in the AU Small Finance Bank branch in Jind.
Sources claim that there was an attempt to convert the amount into a fixed deposit (FD) in the same bank. However, following the exposure of the Chandigarh bank fraud case, concerns were raised and the entire amount was subsequently transferred to the Cooperative Bank at Alewa, in accordance with the original resolution and rules.
Due to the alleged pressure, the funds reportedly remained in the AU bank’s savings account for nearly a fortnight. This led to a financial loss for the Gram Panchayat in terms of interest, as the difference between the interest earned on a savings account and that on a fixed deposit account resulted in reduced potential income.
Villagers and observers note that had the Chandigarh bank fraud not come to light, the funds might not have been shifted back to the Cooperative Bank. The episode has raised broader questions about financial transparency, political influence in banking decisions, and adherence to established government norms.
For Gram Panchayat Badhana, the controversy may have ultimately ensured compliance with due procedure — but the developments have also sparked debate about accountability and safeguards in the handling of public funds.