Officer’s Wife Accused of Drawing ₹37.54 Lakh Without Working
In a shocking revelation from Rajasthan, the wife of a senior government officer has been accused of illegally receiving ₹37.54 lakh from two private companies without performing any work. The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to investigate the allegations thoroughly after a complainant filed a detailed petition.
According to official reports, Poonam Dixit, wife of Joint Director Pradyuman Dixit from RajComp Info Services, was allegedly shown as an employee at two private firms — OrionPro Solutions and Treegen Software Limited — that had secured government contracts. However, investigators claim she never attended office or performed any professional duties.
How the Alleged Corruption Took Place
As per ACB sources, both companies deposited around ₹37.54 lakh into five different bank accounts belonging to Poonam Dixit between January 2019 and September 2020. These payments were allegedly made under the guise of salary disbursements, even though she was not an active employee.
The investigation suggests that Pradyuman Dixit may have misused his official position in the Department of Information Technology to help these firms obtain government tenders. In return, his wife allegedly received monthly salaries as a “ghost employee” to conceal the bribe payments.
The ACB’s preliminary inquiry, which began in July following the court’s direction, has reportedly confirmed irregularities in the transactions. Officials are now examining digital trails, financial records, and communications between the Dixits and the two companies.
Role of the Companies Under Scrutiny
The companies named in the complaint — OrionPro Solutions and Treegen Software Limited — are private IT firms that have previously been awarded several government technology tenders in Rajasthan. Investigators believe the companies may have funneled illegal payments through fake employment arrangements to favor government approvals.
An official associated with the case said that both firms are now under the scanner for potential involvement in “quid pro quo” deals with government officials. The ACB has also sought permission to interrogate company representatives and analyze tender documents approved by RajComp during the alleged period.
Court’s Observations and ACB’s Next Steps
The Rajasthan High Court took cognizance of the complaint after the petitioner provided evidence of bank transactions and employment records. The court noted the “prima facie” presence of corruption and directed the ACB to conduct a comprehensive investigation without delay.
The ACB has reportedly summoned both Pradyuman and Poonam Dixit for questioning. According to sources, the bureau is also analyzing whether the payments were linked to specific tenders sanctioned by the officer. The agency may soon file an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act if sufficient evidence is gathered.
Meanwhile, the Rajasthan government is expected to review internal oversight mechanisms within the Department of Information Technology to prevent such misuse of power.
Public Reaction and Broader Implications
The incident has triggered outrage among citizens and activists who have demanded stricter monitoring of government contracts and closer scrutiny of officials involved in tender processes. Transparency advocates have urged the government to introduce mandatory asset disclosures for senior bureaucrats and their family members.
Legal experts suggest that if the allegations are proven true, it could lead to serious criminal and disciplinary action against both the officer and his wife. The case also highlights persistent loopholes in the system that allow private firms to influence officials through indirect benefits.
Conclusion
The case of Pradyuman and Poonam Dixit has exposed a troubling intersection of corruption and cronyism in Rajasthan’s administrative framework. As the ACB’s investigation continues, questions remain about how such transactions escaped detection for nearly two years. The outcome of this probe could set a precedent for tackling similar cases of covert financial misconduct involving government officers and private entities.