The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has found preliminary evidence supporting allegations of procurement irregularities at the Public Works Department (PWD) in Kishoreganj, following complaints by 14 local contractors against Executive Engineer Md Mohiuddin Jahangir.
An ACC enforcement team visited the Kishoreganj PWD divisional office on Thursday, questioned officials and collected documents relating to the alleged irregularities. According to the information provided, the team identified preliminary evidence warranting further scrutiny after examining records and conducting an on-site inspection.
The allegations include manipulation of tender procedures, favouritism in awarding contracts, irregular payments, suspected embezzlement and misuse of government resources.
The contractors submitted a written complaint on 21 September to the ACC, the PWD chief engineer and the Kishoreganj deputy commissioner, seeking an independent investigation.
Questions over 27 tenders issued in a single day
A central allegation concerns the handling of 27 tenders related to the Kishoreganj Model Mosque project shortly before the end of the 2025-26 financial year.
According to the complainants, the tenders were invited under the Open Tendering Method (OTM) on 21 June, contracts were signed the following day, and cheques against work bills were issued on 23 June.
They alleged that all 27 contracts were awarded to just five contractors favoured by the executive engineer, raising questions about whether procurement requirements and competitive bidding procedures were followed.
The complainants also questioned the use of OTM for at least 35 works described in their complaint as belonging to the 2026-27 financial year. They claimed that many of these contracts should instead have been processed through the Limited Tendering Method (LTM).
They further alleged that several tender notices were not adequately publicised, restricting competition and potentially causing financial losses to the government.
Similar allegations were raised concerning procurement during the 2025-26 financial year, when contracts were reportedly awarded to a small group of contractors through procedures the complainants considered inappropriate.
The complaints also identify several government construction and renovation projects where contractors suspect financial and procedural irregularities.
These include the Kishoreganj Model Mosque, Mithamain Shilpakala Academy, a lawyers’ building and construction works at several police stations.
The contractors alleged irregularities in advance bill payments and approvals for variations in boundary wall and piling works at the Mithamain Shilpakala Academy project.
They also accused officials of withholding payments for works included in the Annual Procurement Plan (APP), while allegedly withdrawing public funds through fictitious bills and vouchers.
The allegations have not been independently established, and a detailed examination of procurement and financial records would be necessary to determine whether any public money was misappropriated.
Allegations of financial misconduct and unexplained assets
The contractors raised further questions about expenditure on the renovation of the executive engineer’s official residence and the handling of contractors’ five percent security deposits.
They alleged that approximately Tk45 lakh was withdrawn through nine cheques in the name of a Dhaka-based contractor ahead of Eid-ul-Azha. The complaint characterises the transactions as suspected embezzlement, although the circumstances and legitimacy of the payments remain to be independently verified.
The complainants also claimed that Jahangir had constructed two houses in Natore and a 10-storey building in Dhaka using proceeds from alleged irregularities.
However, the ownership, financing and sources of funds for these properties have not been independently verified. No evidence establishing a connection between the alleged assets and misappropriated public money was provided in the account available for this report.
Other accusations concern the executive engineer’s attendance at work, alleged personal use of government vehicles and stays in Dhaka without authorisation.
The contractors claimed that Jahangir attended office only two or three days a week and called for an examination of attendance registers, vehicle logbooks and official leave records.
Neglect of government quarters also alleged
The complainants additionally accused the department of failing to carry out necessary repairs to government residential quarters at the Jute Research Centre.
They claimed that six families previously living in the quarters had been forced to relocate because of deteriorating conditions.
According to the complaint, the building has since fallen into disuse, raising concerns about the preservation of government property and the potential encroachment of public land.
Executive engineer rejects allegations
Responding to the accusations, Executive Engineer Md Mohiuddin Jahangir dismissed them as fabricated and baseless.
He maintained that he had performed his responsibilities with honesty and integrity and accused certain contractors of spreading misinformation after failing to secure their desired benefits.
Jahangir also claimed that the department had previously investigated the allegations and found no evidence to substantiate them.
His account of the earlier investigation could not be independently verified from the information available.
The complainants have demanded a comprehensive investigation into the procurement process, including scrutiny of tender advertisements, bid evaluations, contracts, payment records, bills and vouchers.
They urged the authorities to take legal action against those responsible if the allegations are substantiated.
Shawpon Barmon, president of the Kishoreganj Conscious Citizens Committee, a local unit of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), stressed the importance of an impartial investigation to protect transparency and accountability in public procurement.
He said appropriate action should be taken if wrongdoing is established, while the position of the accused official should also be clarified if the allegations are found to be unsubstantiated.
The ACC’s reported preliminary findings have brought the complaints under renewed scrutiny. However, a preliminary enforcement assessment does not constitute a final determination of corruption or criminal liability.