Rs 657-Crore IDFC First Bank Scam: IAS Officer Pardeep Kumar Blames Former HSPCB Chairman for Exceeding Investment Limits in Bail Plea
The alleged Rs 657-crore IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank scam has taken a fresh turn, with 2011-batch IAS officer Pardeep Kumar placing the responsibility for controversial investment decisions on the former Chairman of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB), Vineet Garg. In his anticipatory bail application, Kumar has claimed that the former Chairman repeatedly directed investments beyond the limits prescribed by the Haryana Finance Department while overlooking banks that were offering better interest rates.
The allegations surfaced during the hearing of Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea on Friday. After hearing preliminary submissions, the court issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and scheduled the matter for further hearing on July 2.
The case is part of the wider CBI investigation into the alleged Rs 657-crore banking scam involving investments made in IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank. Investigators are examining transactions across several government departments in Haryana and Chandigarh, with the alleged Rs 169-crore HSPCB investment forming one component of the larger probe.
According to reports, former HSPCB Chairman Vineet Garg did not respond to phone calls or text messages seeking his version of the allegations.
IAS Officer Defends His Role Before Court
In his anticipatory bail application, Pardeep Kumar stated that he served as the Member Secretary of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board from August 31, 2022, until December 10, 2025.
He argued that the investment decisions initially processed during his tenure strictly adhered to the guidelines issued by the Haryana Finance Department through the Additional Chief Secretary on July 12, 2024.
According to Kumar, the policy clearly stipulated that, except for small finance banks being empanelled with the Haryana Government for the first time, no government department could invest more than Rs 50 crore in a single bank. He maintained that IDFC First Bank fell within this category and was therefore subject to the prescribed investment ceiling.
The IAS officer contended that the original investment proposals fully complied with these financial norms and were prepared only after comparing the interest rates offered by different banks.
Shift from Digital File System to Physical Files
One of the significant claims made in the bail application relates to the administrative process adopted for approving investments.
Kumar informed the court that investment proposals were initially processed through the HSPCB’s electronic file management system.
However, he alleged that after Vineet Garg assumed charge as Chairman on December 2, 2024, he instructed officials to discontinue the digital processing of fixed deposit proposals and shift them to a physical file system.
According to Kumar, this transition was implemented on March 25, 2025.
The bail plea also alleges that the former Chairman directed the opening of an HSPCB bank account at the Sector-32 branch of IDFC First Bank in Chandigarh, a move that later became significant in the ongoing investigation.
Initial Investment Proposal Allegedly Followed Rules
Pardeep Kumar has asserted that when HSPCB accumulated surplus funds amounting to Rs 143.87 crore for investment, he undertook a comparison of interest rates offered by various banks before preparing an investment proposal.
According to the proposal dated March 5, 2025, the funds were proposed to be distributed among three banks in accordance with the Finance Department’s investment policy.
The proposal recommended depositing Rs 50 crore with IDFC First Bank at an annual interest rate of 8.25 percent, Rs 71.93 crore with HARCO Bank at 8.17 percent for one year and Rs 21.94 crore with Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank at an annual interest rate of 8 percent.
Kumar claimed that this proposal complied with the government’s Rs 50-crore investment cap applicable to first-time empanelled banks and was subsequently approved by the Chairman.
Investments Allegedly Exceeded Government Ceiling
The IAS officer has alleged that the controversy began after the initial investment was made.
According to the anticipatory bail application, additional investments continued to be made in IDFC First Bank on the oral directions of the then Chairman, even after the permissible investment ceiling had already been exhausted.
The plea identifies several dates on which fresh investments were allegedly made, including March 27, July 1, July 30, October 1 and October 23, 2025.
Kumar has argued that these transactions resulted in investments far exceeding the Rs 50-crore ceiling laid down in the Finance Department’s policy dated July 12, 2024.
He has urged the court to objectively examine these subsequent investments, contending that they were undertaken despite the existence of clear government guidelines restricting such deposits.
Preference Allegedly Given to IDFC First Bank
The bail plea also raises questions about the manner in which investment decisions were allegedly modified.
According to Kumar, large amounts of public money continued to be placed with the Sector-32 branch of IDFC First Bank in Chandigarh even though several nationalised, government-owned and private banks located in Panchkula, where HSPCB has its headquarters, were offering equal or even higher rates of interest.
He specifically referred to an investment proposal dated October 23, 2025, claiming that the proposed deposit in IDFC First Bank was increased from Rs 25 crore to Rs 50 crore by the then Chairman, despite another empanelled bank offering a more favourable return.
Kumar has also alleged that an additional transaction of Rs 3.50 crore was approved in favour of the same bank branch on the Chairman’s verbal instructions.
These allegations form a key part of his defence before the court.
“I Was Only Carrying Out Directions”
In his plea, Pardeep Kumar has maintained that he acted only in his official capacity as Member Secretary and implemented decisions taken by his superior.
He has argued that he had no authority to independently alter investment allocations once directions had been issued by the Chairman.
To support this contention, Kumar has referred to developments that took place after his transfer from the department.
According to him, his successor, IAS officer Yogesh Kumar, also submitted investment proposals that were subsequently revised by the then Chairman by exercising powers vested in that office.
Kumar has cited these instances to argue that the authority for modifying investment allocations rested exclusively with the Chairman and not with the Member Secretary.
Court Issues Notice to CBI
After hearing the matter, the court issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation and sought its response to the anticipatory bail application.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on July 2, when the investigating agency is expected to present its stand before the court.
The outcome of the hearing could have a significant bearing on the ongoing investigation and the future course of legal proceedings against the IAS officer.
Larger CBI Investigation Continues
The alleged Rs 169-crore HSPCB investment irregularity is only one part of the much larger Rs 657-crore scam currently under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The wider probe relates to the alleged diversion and fraudulent investment of government funds in IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank across multiple government departments in Haryana and Chandigarh.
Investigators are examining the role of serving and former government officials, bank executives and other individuals who may have been associated with the investment decisions under scrutiny.
Several senior bureaucrats have already come under the CBI’s scanner as investigators continue to analyse financial records, official approvals and internal decision-making processes linked to the alleged transactions.
With the court set to hear Pardeep Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea on July 2, the case is expected to remain under close watch as the CBI continues its investigation into one of the biggest alleged public fund investment scandals involving government departments in recent years.
It is important to note that the allegations made by IAS officer Pardeep Kumar in his anticipatory bail application are his defence before the court. The claims are yet to be tested during the judicial process, and the investigation by the CBI is still ongoing.
