Srinagar: The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) J&K on Monday said it has registered an FIR against the then Branch Head of J&K Grameen Bank, Reban branch, Sopore, and a Business Correspondent over alleged financial irregularities and premature release of capital subsidy under PMEGP during 2021-2023.
In a statement , a spokesperson said the ACB J&K had registered an FIR against Arvind Saini, the then Branch Head of J&K Grameen Bank, Reban branch, Sopore, and Firdous Ahmad Sheikh, a Business Correspondent, among others, for allegedly committing financial irregularities and misusing their official positions.
The spokesperson said the accused allegedly committed serious financial irregularities by prematurely releasing capital subsidy under sponsored schemes related to the implementation of the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) during 2021-2023, in violation of the PMEGP Operational Guidelines issued by the sponsoring agency and adopted by the bank vide Circular No. 86 dated June 8, 2022.
“During verification, it was revealed that Arvind Saini, the then Branch Head of J&K Grameen Bank, Reban branch, Sopore, under a criminal conspiracy with beneficiary Firdous Ahmad Sheikh, prematurely released/reversed capital subsidy amounting to Rs 41,17,500 in 25 PMEGP loan accounts before expiry of the mandatory lock-in period, without receipt of the requisite authorisation/adjustment letter from the implementing agency,” the spokesperson said.
He said this allegedly facilitated the unlawful closure/adjustment of the concerned loan accounts in violation of PMEGP guidelines. Among these, six loan accounts sanctioned in favour of Business Correspondent Firdous Ahmad Sheikh and his family members were allegedly closed prematurely through adjustment of the subsidy.
The spokesperson further said that during verification, it was established that no business units were found existing during physical verification in 46 PMEGP units financed by the branch, involving a sanctioned/disbursed amount of Rs 1,66,72,000.
“This frustrated the objective of the PMEGP scheme and indicated diversion of loan funds and subsidy in conspiracy with the beneficiaries,” he said.
Accordingly, FIR No. 05/2026 under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, and Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC has been registered against Arvind Saini, the then Branch Head of J&K Grameen Bank, Reban branch, Sopore, Firdous Ahmad Sheikh, Business Correspondent, and others. Further investigation in the case is underway.—(KNO)
Facts Only
* The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) J&K registered an FIR.
* The FIR was against Arvind Saini, the then Branch Head of J&K Grameen Bank, Reban branch, Sopore, and Firdous Ahmad Sheikh, a Business Correspondent, among others.
* The allegations relate to financial irregularities and premature release of capital subsidy under PMEGP during 2021-2023.
* Accused allegedly prematurely released/reversed capital subsidy amounting to Rs 41,17,500 in 25 PMEGP loan accounts before the lock-in period expiry and without requisite authorization.
* This action allegedly facilitated the unlawful closure/adjustment of loan accounts.
* Six loan accounts involving Firdous Ahmad Sheikh and his family members were allegedly closed prematurely through subsidy adjustment.
* Physical verification found no existing business units in 46 PMEGP units financed by the branch, totaling Rs 1,66,72,000 in sanctioned/disbursed amounts.
* The FIR was registered under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC.
* Further investigation is underway.
Executive Summary
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) J&K registered an FIR against Arvind Saini, the then Branch Head of J&K Grameen Bank, Reban branch, Sopore, and Firdous Ahmad Sheikh, a Business Correspondent, along with others. The allegations concern financial irregularities and the premature release of capital subsidy under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) during the 2021-2023 period.
The investigation found that the accused allegedly prematurely released or reversed capital subsidy amounting to Rs 41,17,500 across 25 PMEGP loan accounts before the mandatory lock-in period expired and without obtaining necessary authorization from the implementing agency. This action allegedly facilitated the unlawful closure of related loan accounts. Furthermore, physical verification revealed that no business units existed in 46 PMEGP units financed by the branch, involving a total sanctioned/disbursed amount of Rs 1,66,72,000. The spokesperson noted that this activity suggested a diversion of loan funds and subsidy in collusion with the beneficiaries, which frustrated the objective of the PMEGP scheme.
Full Take
The narrative centers on a breach of procedural guidelines within a government-sponsored scheme, where actions taken by officials allegedly resulted in financial diversion for private gain. The pattern observed involves collusion between an institutional position and beneficiary roles to circumvent mandatory regulatory checkpoints (lock-in periods and authorization requirements). This highlights a systemic vulnerability where administrative oversight fails to prevent the misuse of funds intended for public employment generation. The discrepancy between the sanctioned loan amounts and the physical existence of business units points toward a breakdown in physical verification protocols, suggesting that procedural failures were compounded by a lack of substantive checks on on-the-ground reality.
This scenario prompts consideration of accountability structures: when financial outcomes are manipulated through layered administrative action, where does responsibility reside—with the process creators or the agents executing them? The focus shifts from isolated fraud to the structural integrity of oversight mechanisms within rural finance implementation. Further inquiry should explore whether the failure was an isolated instance of misconduct or symptomatic of broader systemic weaknesses in implementing and monitoring PMEGP compliance across financial institutions. What is the role of the beneficiaries versus the institutional gatekeepers in sustaining these cycles of procedural violation?