Bihar Tender Scam Probe: IAS Officer Sanjeev Hans Challenges FIR, Says Vigilance Case Lacks Direct Evidence
Senior IAS officer Sanjeev Hans has challenged the FIR in the Bihar tender scam case, claiming the vigilance probe lacks direct evidence and relies on allegations previously rejected by the courts. Read the full story.
The controversy surrounding the alleged Bihar tender scam has taken a fresh turn, with senior IAS officer Sanjeev Hans launching a detailed rebuttal against the vigilance case registered against him. Nearly eleven months after the Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) lodged its First Information Report (FIR), Hans has formally questioned both the legal and factual foundations of the case, arguing that investigators have failed to establish any direct link between him and the alleged irregularities.
His response comes at a time when the Special Vigilance Unit has stepped up its investigation into the matter, bringing renewed attention to one of Bihar’s most closely watched corruption-related inquiries involving government contracts and tender allocations.
In a comprehensive four-page communication sent to SVU Additional Director General Pankaj Kumar Darad and the state’s Vigilance Commissioner, Hans has strongly defended his actions and challenged the allegations levelled against him. The senior bureaucrat has maintained that the case is built on assumptions rather than evidence and relies heavily on claims that have already faced judicial examination in the past.
The FIR in question was registered by the Special Vigilance Unit on April 30, 2025. It names four primary accused individuals, including IAS officer Sanjeev Hans, businessman Rishu Shree, Santosh Kumar, and Pawan Kumar. The complaint also includes unnamed government officials whose identities have not yet been publicly disclosed.
Investigators are examining alleged irregularities in the award and execution of government tenders. The case has been registered under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with authorities seeking to determine whether public officials or private entities manipulated procurement processes for unlawful gains.
Hans, however, has categorically denied any wrongdoing.
According to his letter, the preliminary investigation appears to draw heavily from allegations similar to those that had surfaced in an earlier case. He argued that the previous matter had already been scrutinized by the judiciary and was eventually quashed by the Patna High Court. Because of this, he questioned why similar claims were being revived and used as the basis for fresh criminal proceedings.
One of the central points raised by Hans concerns information shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The IAS officer stated that material provided by the central agency does not establish any evidence of corruption, favouritism, or procedural violations in the awarding of tenders. In his view, the available records do not support the conclusion that government processes were manipulated or that public funds were misused.
Hans also sought to explain the administrative framework under which major government contracts are approved.
Referring specifically to tender procedures, he pointed out that projects exceeding ₹3.5 crore cannot be approved by a department secretary acting alone. Instead, such proposals are examined and cleared by departmental tender committees comprising multiple officials. These committees collectively evaluate bids, technical qualifications, financial proposals, and compliance requirements before any final decision is taken.
By highlighting this process, Hans attempted to counter allegations suggesting that he could have independently influenced or approved contracts under investigation.
He argued that the very structure of the tender approval mechanism prevents unilateral decision-making and ensures institutional oversight at multiple levels. Therefore, attributing responsibility to a single official without establishing specific evidence would be both factually and procedurally flawed, he contended.
Another major aspect of his defence relates to financial transactions allegedly linked to companies mentioned in the FIR.
Hans has denied having any connection with those transactions and asserted that investigators have not produced any material demonstrating his involvement in the movement of funds. He questioned why he had been named as an accused when, according to him, there is no direct documentary evidence connecting him to any financial irregularity.
His letter reportedly asks vigilance authorities to explain the basis on which criminal liability has been assigned to him. The officer maintains that merely occupying a senior administrative position does not automatically imply participation in alleged misconduct unless specific evidence supports such a conclusion.
The IAS officer also defended the integrity of the projects currently under scrutiny.
According to his submissions, the contracts in question were awarded only after detailed technical evaluations conducted through established procedures. He stated that all necessary requirements were followed during the selection process and that decisions were made in accordance with applicable government rules.
Hans further emphasized that several of the projects being investigated were implemented under frameworks requiring adherence to World Bank guidelines. Such projects, he argued, are subject to rigorous monitoring, transparency requirements, technical scrutiny, and compliance checks designed to prevent manipulation or favouritism.
Because of these safeguards, he claimed, allegations of arbitrary contract allocation are inconsistent with the actual process through which the tenders were awarded.
The developments come as investigative agencies continue examining documents, financial records, tender files, and communications connected to the case. The Special Vigilance Unit has been expanding its inquiry over recent weeks, signalling that authorities intend to conduct a thorough review of the allegations.
The case has attracted significant public attention because of the profile of those involved and the broader concerns surrounding transparency in public procurement. Government tenders often involve substantial expenditure of public funds, making accountability and procedural compliance critical issues for both policymakers and citizens.
Legal observers note that Hans’s letter represents an important stage in the unfolding investigation. While vigilance authorities are expected to continue examining evidence collected during the probe, the officer’s detailed response introduces a fresh layer of legal and administrative arguments that investigators may need to evaluate.
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: whether the available evidence can establish a direct connection between individual officials and the alleged irregularities, or whether the allegations are based primarily on assumptions arising from their official positions.
For now, vigilance authorities have not publicly responded in detail to the assertions made by Hans. The investigation remains active, and officials have indicated that all relevant material will be examined before any final conclusions are reached.
As the probe moves forward, attention is likely to remain focused on the findings of investigative agencies, the documentary evidence gathered during the inquiry, and the legal arguments advanced by those named in the FIR.
With both sides presenting sharply different narratives, the Bihar tender scam investigation appears poised to remain under intense scrutiny in the months ahead. Whether the allegations ultimately withstand legal examination or are successfully challenged by the accused will depend on the evidence that emerges as investigators continue their work.
