Anti-Graft Agency Files Case Over Surkhet Revenue Misuse

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority has filed a corruption case against five individuals, including three serving deputy secretaries, over the alleged embezzlement of nearly Rs 30 million while working at the Surkhet Valley Town Development Committee in Birendranagar.

The case centers on claims that large amounts of revenue collected by the committee over multiple fiscal years were not deposited into the official account. Investigators allege that the accused worked together to divert public funds and later prepared misleading financial statements to conceal the irregularities.

The anti-graft body said the alleged misuse of revenue took place during fiscal years 2019/20 through 2023/24, when the officials served in key administrative and financial roles within the committee. The issue has drawn attention because several of the accused currently hold senior government positions in different public institutions.

Senior Officials Named in Corruption Case

The anti-corruption agency has named current Lamahi Municipality Chief Administrative Officer Gehendra Bahadur Dangi among the defendants in the case.

Former member secretaries of the Surkhet Valley Town Development Committee, Tikaram Dhakal and Narahari Tiwari, have also been charged. In addition, former accounts officer Hari Bahadur Khatri and former assistant accountant Khadka Bahadur Rana have been included in the case.

According to the investigation, the officials allegedly acted in coordination while serving in administrative positions connected to the committee’s operations in Birendranagar.

Claims of Revenue Misuse Over Multiple Years

Investigators stated that the committee collected more than Rs 41.8 million in revenue through rent collection receipts during the period under review.

However, the anti-graft body claims that only around Rs 12.3 million was deposited into the official revenue account. The remaining amount, estimated at nearly Rs 29.4 million, was allegedly misappropriated.

The investigation further stated that the suspected irregularities continued across several fiscal years, raising concerns about internal financial monitoring and administrative accountability within the committee.

• Revenue reportedly collected: More than Rs 41.8 million
• Amount deposited into official account: Around Rs 12.3 million
• Alleged embezzled amount: Nearly Rs 29.4 million
• Period under investigation: Fiscal years 2019/20 to 2023/24

Separate Financial Claims Against Each Defendant

The anti-corruption agency has sought different amounts from the accused based on their alleged involvement in the case.

Dhakal faces a claim of more than Rs 6.4 million, while Tiwari has been accused of causing losses exceeding Rs 10.4 million. Dangi is accused of responsibility linked to more than Rs 7.2 million.

Authorities have also sought recovery of over Rs 29 million from former accounts officer Khatri. Since Khatri has already passed away, his wife Seema Kumari Chand has been named in the case for recovery purposes.

Former assistant accountant Rana faces a claim exceeding Rs 29.4 million, according to the charges filed by investigators.

Current Government Roles Add Public Attention

The case has drawn wider public interest because several of the accused are currently serving in important government positions.

Dhakal is currently serving as director at the Department of Foreign Employment. Tiwari is working as director at the Department of Commerce, Supplies and Consumer Protection.

Dangi currently serves as chief administrative officer of Lamahi Municipality in Dang district.

The anti-corruption agency alleges that the three officials committed financial irregularities while previously serving as chief administrative officials linked to Birendranagar Municipality and while holding responsibilities connected to the town development committee.

Investigators Allege Coordinated Financial Irregularities

According to the investigation findings, the accused allegedly worked together in a planned manner to divert committee revenue collected from rent payments.

Authorities claim the officials later attempted to avoid accountability by preparing financial reports containing false details that showed the money had already been deposited into the bank.

The agency also stated that those financial reports were presented before committee meetings for approval. Decisions were reportedly endorsed during meetings based on those submitted documents.

Investigators believe the preparation and approval of those records helped conceal the alleged misuse of public funds over several years.

Case Filed After Detailed Investigation

The corruption case was formally filed following an investigation conducted by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority into the committee’s financial transactions and revenue management process.

Officials from the anti-graft body stated that the investigation focused on revenue collected through rent payments and the movement of those funds into official accounts.

The agency said the evidence gathered during the inquiry indicated organized irregularities involving administrative and financial officials associated with the committee.

The case is now expected to proceed through the legal process, where the allegations and financial claims against the defendants will be examined in court.

Questions Raised Over Financial Oversight

The allegations have also raised concerns regarding financial transparency and oversight within public development committees handling revenue collection and administrative operations.

The reported gap between collected revenue and deposited funds has become a central issue in the case. Investigators argue that the alleged irregularities continued for years without proper detection.

The anti-corruption agency maintains that the accused individuals were directly involved in handling committee finances and administrative decisions during the period when the alleged embezzlement took place.

With the case now officially registered, attention is likely to remain focused on how the court evaluates the financial records, administrative decisions and evidence presented by investigators.