New Delhi :WAPCOS Limited, a Central Public Sector Enterprise under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, is at the centre of serious allegations of systemic corruption and administrative failure, with complaints suggesting that internal accountability mechanisms and external oversight processes were rendered ineffective over an extended period. The matter has acquired wider significance after it emerged that detailed representations sent to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretariat were formally referred to the Ministry of Jal Shakti but allegedly failed to trigger any independent inquiry or vigilance action.

The complaints relate largely to the tenure of former Chairman-cum-Managing Director Rajnikant Aggarwal, during which WAPCOS is alleged to have witnessed large-scale procedural violations, compromised procurement practices and the emergence of an internal network operating beyond effective scrutiny. According to the complainants, these were not isolated irregularities but part of a sustained pattern that indicates institutionalised wrongdoing, if established.

Several high-value consultancy and EPC-linked projects are alleged to have been awarded through nomination routes, limited or tailor-made tenders and post-facto approvals, in violation of the General Financial Rules, Central Vigilance Commission guidelines and PSU procurement norms. Projects in Odisha, Kerala, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and multiple MoU-based state assignments have been cited where competitive bidding was allegedly bypassed or reduced to a formality, undermining transparency and fair competition.

The complaints further allege the existence of a commission-driven system in which contractors were compelled to make payments linked to the award of work, clearance of bills, subcontracting approvals and refund of earnest money deposits. If substantiated, such practices would amount to criminal misuse of public office and indicate the conversion of administrative authority into a mechanism of private gain.

Serious concerns have also been raised about the alleged capture of WAPCOS’ internal control systems. Finance, human resources and vigilance wings, which are expected to act as institutional safeguards, are said to have been compromised. Key positions were allegedly filled through pliant arrangements, financial objections were overridden, and vigilance complaints were ignored or allowed to lapse. This, according to the complainants, resulted in an organisation where compliance existed on record while accountability was absent in practice.

What has intensified scrutiny is that multiple complaints were escalated beyond the PSU and forwarded to the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Secretariat and other statutory authorities. These were formally referred to the Ministry of Jal Shakti for necessary action and marked to Pradeep Kumar, Joint Secretary (Policy and Planning). However, according to the complainants and the available documentary trail, no independent inquiry was ordered, no vigilance examination was initiated, no forensic audit was conducted and no reasoned closure orders were issued. The matters are alleged to have been sidelined, allowed to lapse or rendered dormant despite originating from the highest executive offices of the Government of India.

The alleged inaction has assumed greater significance in light of claims that the Joint Secretary concerned is a batch mate of the current CMD of WAPCOS, raising concerns of conflict of interest and compromised neutrality. While no conclusion has been officially drawn, the perception of proximity influencing institutional response has added to questions surrounding the credibility of the process. In governance, perception carries institutional weight, particularly when serious allegations meet sustained silence.

According to the complainants, the consequences of this alleged failure have been substantial. Officials named in the complaints continued to occupy influential positions, internal networks allegedly remained intact, and certain officers are said to have emerged as gatekeepers around the CMD, filtering information and insulating the top leadership from adverse reports. Those accused of contributing to the organisation’s decline are described as having repositioned themselves as protectors of stability while exercising control over access to critical information.

The alleged sidelining of complaints routed from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretariat cannot be dismissed as routine bureaucratic delay. If established, it would point to a violation of the Government of India’s Rules of Business, a breakdown of vigilance and integrity frameworks and a dangerous precedent in which oversight authorities themselves become barriers to accountability. This dimension, involving the handling of complaints at the Ministry level, requires scrutiny independent of the allegations against WAPCOS officials.

WAPCOS plays a strategic role in India’s infrastructure and development projects, both domestically and internationally. Allegations of this magnitude, combined with claims of institutional inaction, raise questions that go beyond one PSU and one ministry. When complaints move from whistleblowers to the highest offices of the government and still fail to produce visible action, the issue is no longer confined to internal corruption. It becomes a test of the state’s capacity to hold its own systems accountable and preserve the credibility of governance itself.