The Municipal Corporation (MC) has formally rejected IDFC First Bank’s claim that its remittance of Rs 5,75,47,658 constitutes full and final settlement of all dues in the Rs 117-crore Chandigarh Smart City Limited (CSCL) bank account fraud case.
The MC told the bank that its supporting calculations are unclear, demanding a comprehensive transaction-wise working note. The corporation has also explicitly reserved all rights to pursue outstanding recovery through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Chandigarh Police and the Accountant General Audit (Centre).
MC demands clarity on settlement calculations
Official communications exchanged between the MC and IDFC First Bank reveal that the MC Chief Accounts Officer, in a point-by-point reply, has questioned the basis of the bank’s settlement figure. The corporation maintains that the remitted amount does not automatically close the case, especially when the total fraud amount stands at Rs 117 crore.
The MC’s rejection centers on the lack of transparency in how the bank arrived at the Rs 5.75-crore figure. By demanding a transaction-wise working note, the corporation is pushing for a detailed breakdown that can be verified against the actual losses incurred in the fraud case.
Recovery options remain open through multiple agencies
The MC has made it clear that rejecting this settlement does not mean the matter ends. Instead, the corporation is keeping all legal and investigative channels open. The explicit mention of CBI, ED, EOW and the Accountant General Audit signals that the MC is prepared to escalate the matter if the bank does not provide satisfactory clarification.
"The MC told the bank that its supporting calculations are unclear, demanding a comprehensive transaction-wise working note, and explicitly reserving all rights to pursue outstanding recovery through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Chandigarh Police and the Accountant General Audit (Centre)." — The Tribune
This move indicates that the MC views the Rs 5.75-crore payment as partial at best, not a conclusive resolution to a fraud case involving Rs 117 crore. The gap between the two figures remains a central point of contention.
What this means for the CSCL fraud case
The rejection puts the ball back in IDFC First Bank’s court. The bank must now either provide the detailed working note the MC has requested or face the possibility of recovery proceedings through the named investigative and audit agencies.
For taxpayers and residents of Chandigarh, this development means the Rs 117-crore fraud case is far from closed. The MC’s firm stance suggests it will not accept a settlement that lacks clear justification, especially when public money is involved.
Our Take: A necessary stand for accountability
In our view, the MC’s decision to reject this settlement is the right call. When a fraud case involves Rs 117 crore, accepting Rs 5.75 crore without a clear, verifiable breakdown would have been a disservice to public interest.
The demand for a transaction-wise working note is reasonable. If the bank genuinely believes its payment covers all dues, it should have no trouble providing the detailed calculations to back that claim. The refusal to accept vague numbers and the decision to keep CBI, ED and audit channels open sends a strong message — public money will not be written off lightly.
To put it plainly, this is not just about one bank and one corporation. It is about whether institutions can be held to account when fraud occurs. The MC has chosen accountability over convenience, and that is a standard worth maintaining.