How a 14% Interest Offer Triggered the Diversion of HPGCL’s ₹50 Crore

An unofficial 14% return allegedly drew HPGCL into a ₹50 crore transfer, exposing forged records, approval failures and weak checks over Haryana’s public funds accounts.

Key Highlights
 

• HPGCL moved ₹50 crore on November 11, 2024, after a Chandigarh bank branch allegedly offered 14% annual interest. The CBI says the rate was unauthorised.
   
• The wider fraud surfaced in February 2026. Investigators later traced public money through shell firms, jewellers and unrelated accounts while Haryana tightened its banking rules.

Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, or HPGCL, transferred ₹50 crore after officials at IDFC First Bank’s Sector 32 Chandigarh branch allegedly offered 14% annual interest on a savings account. The transfer took place on November 11, 2024. According to a CBI chargesheet, the bank had not approved that rate, HPGCL had skipped the required internal finance process, and the private bank was not empanelled for Haryana government business then.

The transaction later formed part of a wider investigation into diverted deposits. The Enforcement Directorate’s press release dated March 13, 2026, said public money intended for fixed deposits had moved without authorisation. The episode restricted access to funds and may force Haryana bodies to verify large deposits through independent channels.

How Could HPGCL’s ₹50 Crore Transfer Affect Citizens?

HPGCL manages Haryana’s state-owned power generation operations. Its deposits support public-sector work, reserves and future payments. No official agency has linked this diversion to higher electricity tariffs or interrupted supply. Still, when funds become unavailable, even temporarily, the corporation may have less room for maintenance, payments or approved projects.

Citizens may gain stronger safeguards from the response. Haryana now requires prior Finance Department approval before a government body opens a private bank account. Departments must reconcile fixed deposits every month. A branch receipt cannot be treated as final proof. The rule can catch a questionable transaction earlier when officials perform the checks properly.

How Did The 14% Interest Offer Lead To The Transfer?

The chain began with a ₹108.47 crore HPGCL fixed deposit at IndusInd Bank. On November 11, 2024, officials initiated the premature withdrawal of ₹50 crore. A departmental note recorded that IDFC First Bank had offered 14% annual interest on HPGCL’s Dry Fly Ash Fund savings account until March 28, 2025.

Investigators say HPGCL did not confirm the rate with the bank’s treasury or head office. The account also lacked approval from its Internal Finance and Commercial Cell. No recorded urgency explained why the existing deposit had to be broken early.

The CBI chargesheet reportedly says accounts officer Saurabh Saini recommended the withdrawal, while the then finance director Amit Dewan processed it without the required approval. Both can challenge the allegations in court.

A warning appeared soon afterwards. HPGCL received less interest than promised. On January 24, 2025, bank official Abhay Kumar reportedly blamed an internal issue. Demand drafts later covered the difference. That payment preserved trust but did not prove the 14% rate was genuine.

The sequence is shown below.

The first transfer established a working relationship. When the interest difference was paid locally, HPGCL officials had another reason to trust papers supplied by the same branch. That trust carried into the next placement.

How Was The Second ₹50 Crore Allegedly Diverted?

A separate HPGCL fixed deposit of ₹159.19 crore matured on March 28, 2025. Another ₹50 crore then reached the IDFC First Bank account for a 1-year deposit at 8.9%.

Investigators later found no such deposit in the bank’s system. A receipt in HPGCL’s files was allegedly forged, while false statements hid the missing FD.

Nearly the entire sum allegedly moved through demand drafts. ₹37.78 crore went to Chandigarh Municipal Corporation and ₹12.21 crore to CREST. Investigators said neither body had a financial link with HPGCL. No contract or approved liability explained either transfer.

What Previous Developments Exposed The Wider Fraud?

Another warning surfaced when HPGCL received its June 2025 statement on July 6. It reportedly showed cheque debits even though the corporation said it had issued none. On February 20, 2026, HPGCL asked the branch to confirm the ₹50 crore FD. The confirmation did not arrive.

Around the same period, Haryana’s Development and Panchayats Department found differences between claimed deposits and bank balances. The bank suspended suspected employees and started a forensic review.

The Central Bureau of Investigation later filed charge sheets. It's May 21, 2026, update named 15 accused, including 6 bank officials and 3 Haryana public servants. A June 12 update placed the alleged loss linked with Haryana departments at ₹504 crore.

The ED traced alleged transfers through shell entities and jewellers using bogus gold-purchase bills. Searches covered 19 premises, while more than 90 bank accounts were frozen. By June 11, 2026, the agency said its wider inquiry covered about ₹645 crore linked to the Haryana government, Chandigarh UT and 2 private-school accounts.

What Have The Stakeholders Said?

The CBI alleges former branch manager Ribhav Rishi acted as a principal organiser. Abhay Kumar and several others were also named. The agency says branch officials created unauthorised offers, forged deposit papers and used false statements to conceal transfers. These claims remain subject to trial.

The ED alleges a laundering route involving shell companies, jewellers, property businesses and cash payments.

IDFC First Bank said it cooperated with investigators, suspended suspected employees and appointed KPMG for a forensic review. It also said it paid ₹583 crore, including principal and interest, to affected Haryana departments on February 24, 2026. Its June 5 disclosure called the episode an isolated branch incident involving collusion among employees, customer officials and outside parties.

Haryana de-empaneled IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank for government business. Departments were told to move balances, close affected accounts and complete reconciliation by March 31, 2026.

What Do Experts Say And How Can Such Transfers Be Stopped?

A LoansJagat deposit-rate comparison published on July 4, 2026, placed a leading 3-year senior-citizen FD rate at 8.30% as of July 1, 2026. That retail rate is not a direct benchmark for HPGCL’s institutional placement. It still shows why a 14% offer required written confirmation from the bank’s highest authorised level.

A higher return should slow approval when public money is involved. Officials should compare offers across banks, confirm rates through a separate channel and verify the FD number in the bank’s main system within 24 hours. A same-day alert should also reach the finance director, managing director and internal audit team. If anyone cannot confirm the deposit, the transfer should remain blocked.

Conclusion

The alleged 14% offer pushed an unusually high return ahead of basic verification. HPGCL broke an existing deposit, opened an account outside the required process and relied on records supplied by the same branch.

The first transfer built trust. The second exposed the cost when investigators found no matching fixed deposit in the bank’s system.

Courts will decide the criminal liability of the accused. Haryana’s administrative failure is already visible. Every special rate and large transfer now needs confirmation through a channel the local branch cannot control.

FAQs

What did IDFC First Bank allegedly offer HPGCL?

The Chandigarh branch allegedly offered 14% annual interest on HPGCL’s Dry Fly Ash Fund savings account.

When did HPGCL transfer the first ₹50 crore?

It transferred the money on November 11, 2024, after prematurely withdrawing an IndusInd Bank fixed deposit.

Was the 14% rate officially approved?

According to the CBI chargesheet, IDFC First Bank later confirmed it was not an official bank rate.

How was the second ₹50 crore allegedly diverted?

Investigators say a forged FD receipt hid the missing deposit, while ₹49.99 crore moved through demand drafts.

What action did Haryana take?

Haryana required prior approval for private bank accounts, ordered monthly reconciliation and de-empaneled 2 banks for government business.