SHILLONG, May 11: Large-scale financial irregularities, manipulation of official records, and misappropriation of public funds under the centrally sponsored PMKSY-WDC 2.0 scheme in Lamalong Village, Ri-Bhoi, have been alleged by an RTI activist, Napoleon Mawphniang, who has called for an independent investigation by a competent authority such as the State Vigilance Commission or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into these alleged anomalies.
Mawphniang’s demand follows a formal complaint backed by documentary evidence obtained through the RTI Act, 2005, along with additional records provided by implementing authorities. According to him, these documents reveal systemic breaches of financial propriety, data tampering, and possible criminal misconduct in the handling of scheme funds.
The Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana – Watershed Development Component (PMKSY-WDC 2.0) is designed to promote
sustainable watershed management, community empowerment, and equitable resource distribution, especially in ecologically fragile regions like Meghalaya. The scheme operates on a strict Centre-State funding ratio of 90:10 and mandates transparency, proper beneficiary selection, financial integrity, and active community participation.
“Any deviation from these standards not only violates the scheme’s core objectives but also constitutes a breach of public trust, potentially falling under offences defined by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,” Mawphniang said.
Citing an RTI response received in November 2024, Mawphniang noted that the sanctioned budget stood at Rs 2.29 crore, with reported expenditures amounting to Rs 1.41 crore. However, a separate document later provided to the village headman listed a reduced budget of Rs 2.27 crore and an inflated expenditure of Rs 1.53 crore. He alleged that this consistent pattern of budget reductions alongside inflated expenditures across various components, such as Production System and Livelihood, strongly suggests intentional financial misreporting.
He further alleged manipulation of beneficiary data, claiming that genuine names were replaced with unrelated individuals or vague designations such as “Community.” Examples cited include the substitution of “Minot Sten” with “Romius Sten” and “Edward Makri” with “Bokstar Khymdeit.” In addition, the headman’s records reportedly listed 27 additional names under Ginger Cultivation and 31 under Farm Equipment, none of which had corresponding work IDs or documentation.
Mawphniang also raised concerns about discrepancies in project status and possible fund diversion. He pointed out that several works marked as “Completed” in the RTI documents were later altered to “Ongoing” in the headman’s version, often annotated with remarks such as “Prior Work Status (Oversight): Completed; Correct Work Status: Ongoing.” He argued that this could be an attempt to justify holding or redirecting funds. In several instances, he added, the headman’s report noted, “Amount diverted to NRM Works as per letter No. MSWWDA-1/24(Pt)/232,” for projects that were originally meant for Self-Help Groups (SHGs). These diversions, Mawphniang claimed, were never mentioned in the RTI responses.
Questionable deductions and reduced disbursements were also flagged. He pointed to a deduction labeled “WDF 10%” that was reportedly applied to beneficiary payments — for instance, in Ginger Cultivation, Rs 5,600 was deducted from an allocation of Rs 56,000, but only Rs 7,000 was ultimately disbursed. Mawphniang claimed that such deductions, unsupported by any scheme guidelines, led to Rs 1.86 lakh in unaccounted funds from just one component. He asserted that overall, beneficiaries received only a fraction of their entitled funds — 13.9 per cent in Ginger Cultivation and 19.8 per cent in Handicrafts — raising serious concerns about the fate of the remaining amounts.
On the matter of non-monetary distribution and Self-Help Group (SHG) involvement, Mawphniang alleged that many beneficiaries received only vague, undocumented items such as “farm tools” or “seedlings,” with no valuation or verification. He added that many SHGs appeared to cease operations after receiving funds, suggesting they may have been used as fronts for fund diversion rather than functioning as legitimate community development bodies.
According to the RTI response, no formal grievance redressal mechanism was in place, and no social audits or public hearings had been conducted — conditions which Mawphniang described as enabling unchecked misuse of public resources. He argued that these findings amount to prima facie evidence of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, including misappropriation, falsification of records, and criminal breach of trust. He also emphasised violations of PMKSY-WDC 2.0’s operational guidelines and a fundamental breach of fiduciary duty by the implementing authorities.
In view of the seriousness of the matter, he called for a forensic audit of all scheme-related financial transactions, on-ground verification of projects and assets, interviews with listed beneficiaries to confirm actual benefit receipt, scrutiny of discrepancies between RTI and headman records, and verification of the existence and activity of all SHGs involved. He further sought disciplinary and criminal action against complicit officials, and the establishment of proper grievance redressal and social audit mechanisms.
“These discrepancies are not isolated mistakes but part of a systematic effort to undermine a flagship national scheme, depriving marginalized communities of their rightful benefits. This demands urgent and decisive action,” Mawphniang stated.
