CBI arrests Haryana IAS in ₹657-crore bank fraud case

What happened in the Haryana bank-fraud probe

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has arrested senior Haryana IAS officer Pankaj Aggarwal in connection with alleged misappropriation of government funds linked to accounts held at IDFC FIRST Bank’s Sector 32, Chandigarh branch. The arrest was made late on Monday evening in Gurugram, according to the case details shared in reports. Aggarwal is a 2000-batch Haryana cadre officer and was produced before a Panchkula court on Tuesday morning. The development makes him the second IAS officer arrested in the case that involves IDFC FIRST Bank and AU Small Finance Bank.

The alleged fraud centres on diversion of public funds through forged or non-existent fixed deposit receipts and debit notes, with money reportedly routed to shell entities. The case has drawn attention because multiple state departments’ funds were allegedly moved through a single bank branch and because both bank officials and public servants are under investigation.

The specific allegations tied to Pankaj Aggarwal

The CBI has linked Aggarwal to the alleged misappropriation of government funds from accounts maintained by Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad (HSSPP) and Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (HSAMB). These accounts were maintained at the Sector 32, Chandigarh branch of IDFC FIRST Bank. Reports state that Aggarwal was then Principal Secretary in the Department of School Education and Agriculture when the alleged diversion occurred.

The agency’s probe found that funds were transferred into these accounts well in excess of permitted limits. It also found that a series of fraudulent transactions were executed within the accounts, leading to systematic misappropriation of public funds. The CBI has attributed a net loss of ₹60.54 crore to the state government in relation to the two departments linked to Aggarwal.

Second IAS arrest: Ram Kumar Singh case in Panchkula

Before Aggarwal’s arrest, the CBI arrested another IAS officer, Ram Kumar Singh, a 2012-batch officer who served as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation (MC) Panchkula. Singh was arrested on 19 June for his alleged role in siphoning ₹79.46 crore from MC Panchkula’s IDFC FIRST Bank account. Separate reports also describe him as a suspended IAS officer arrested in the broader bank scam.

Investigators have consistently described the Panchkula municipal corporation diversion as part of the larger pattern detected at the same Sector 32 IDFC FIRST Bank branch. The case narrative, across multiple updates, points to a combination of forged documentation and coordinated movement of funds from government-linked accounts into shell entities.

How the alleged fraud was executed from a single branch

According to the CBI’s account in the reporting, the wider scam involved siphoning public funds through forged or non-existent fixed deposit receipts and debit notes. The money was then routed to shell entities. The alleged fraud is described as “systemic” and running out of the Sector 32 Chandigarh branch of IDFC FIRST Bank.

Two bank officials have been identified in reports as the principal architects of the fraud: Ribhav Rishi, former branch manager at IDFC FIRST Bank’s Sector 32 Chandigarh branch, and Abhay Kumar, relationship manager at AU Small Finance Bank. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also been reported to have arrested two former IDFC FIRST Bank employees as part of a linked money laundering probe.

Scale of diversion: ₹504 crore, and competing totals of ₹645-₹657 crore

Within the Haryana government departments’ accounts, the CBI has described diversion of funds totalling ₹504 crore from eight Haryana departments, routed to shell entities. The ED, running a parallel probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), has put the overall fraud figure at ₹645 crore. The CBI has pegged it at ₹657 crore.

Separately, some reports referenced searches linked to an alleged ₹661 crore diversion of Haryana government funds involving accounts maintained with IDFC FIRST Bank and AU Small Finance Bank. These varying figures have been cited across different updates, reflecting how different agencies and reports have quantified the alleged loss at different stages of investigation.

Chargesheets, arrests, and what is filed so far

The CBI took over the probe on the Haryana government’s request in May. In a press release dated May 21, the CBI said it filed its first chargesheet before the Special Judge (CBI) court in Panchkula in connection with alleged siphoning of government funds worth ₹504 crore. That first chargesheet named 15 accused, including six bank officials of IDFC FIRST Bank and AU Small Finance Bank, three public servants of the Government of Haryana, two shell entities along with their partners or directors, and one private person.

Other updates stated that the CBI has chargesheeted 17 accused in the Haryana leg of the case, including six bank officials of the two banks, three public servants, two companies, and six private persons. Reports also said the chargesheet against IAS officers is yet to be filed. Separately, agency sources in another update said 16 accused persons had been arrested, and that the CBI investigation had led to multiple arrests.

Timeline of key developments reported so far

The chronology in reports points to a case that expanded quickly from a suspected bank-branch fraud into a multi-agency probe involving government departments, banks, shell entities, and multiple public servants.

Key numbers and entities in the case

The probe spans multiple departments and institutions, with the alleged diversion described across several figures depending on the agency and the specific pool of funds being counted.

Market and institutional impact: what this means in practice

This case is primarily a governance and controls story that affects confidence in how public funds are parked, moved, and monitored across departments. The alleged modus operandi, involving forged instruments and routing to shell entities, highlights the operational risks that can emerge when bank controls and departmental oversight fail at the same time.

The investigation also shows how exposure can spread across institutions when multiple government departments maintain accounts with a single branch and when fund movements exceed permitted limits. With both the CBI and ED running probes, the legal and compliance scrutiny extends beyond fraud detection into alleged money-laundering trails and identification of beneficiaries. For stakeholders, the practical focus is on accountability of bank staff and public officials, and on recovery and prevention steps that may follow from court proceedings.

Analysis: why the case matters for governance and banking controls

The story is significant because it combines three high-risk elements in one chain: large public balances, alleged forged banking instruments, and shell entities used to route funds. Reports that the fraud ran out of one branch underline the importance of branch-level checks, maker-checker controls, and exception monitoring for unusual transfers and fixed-deposit related entries.

It also matters that the case has led to arrests of IAS officers alongside bank officials and private individuals. That combination indicates investigators are examining not just transactional execution but also approvals, authorisations, and departmental fund-management practices. The fact that chargesheets have been filed for a first set of accused, while the chargesheet against IAS officers is yet to be filed, indicates the investigation remains active and is still consolidating evidence for higher-level accountability.

What happens next

The CBI’s probe is ongoing, with investigators continuing to trace fund flows, identify beneficiaries, and determine accountability across public officials, bank executives, and private entities. Reports also said the CBI has carried out fresh searches across locations in Chandigarh, Panchkula and Delhi-NCR, seizing documents and digital devices.

Near-term developments to watch are further court proceedings in Panchkula, additional chargesheets as the investigation progresses, and parallel actions under the ED’s PMLA probe. Any subsequent filings related to IAS officers, including the promised chargesheet, will likely clarify the agency’s case theory on authorisation and oversight failures that allegedly enabled the diversion.