The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Chief Secretary to file a status report clearly indicating the stage of investigation and the action taken in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging squandering of public funds released under the Centre’s Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme for Scheduled Caste (PMS-SC) students. The direction came as a Division Bench noted that the allegations in the petition were against a Minister and senior officers, and that contradictory reports had been filed earlier in the matter.At the onset, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that the petition filed in public interest had remained pending since 2020. The Bench also took note of the State counsel’s submission that an FIR had already been registered and that the investigation was underway.”Considering the fact that allegations in the present petition is against the Minister and Senior Officers and contradictory reports have been filed earlier in this regard, we call upon the Chief Secretary, State of Punjab to file a status report clearly indicating the stage of investigation and also the action taken in the matter,” the Bench ordered.Before parting with the order, the court further observed: “It goes without saying that a fair and impartial investigation shall be got conduced.” The mater will now come up for further hearing on August 4, when the report is likely to be taken up.The PIL alleges squandering of public funds released towards the Post-Matric Scholarships (PMS-SC) launched by the Government of India. The latest order follows the Bench’s directions issued on April 6, when it had expressed concern over the delay in the preliminary inquiry initiated on the basis of a complaint dated May 29, 2023.Admonishing the prolonged pendency of a preliminary inquiry into alleged large-scale irregularities, the Bench had then questioned the failure to register an FIR within the stipulated period. The Bench had also asked Punjab Chief Secretary to file an affidavit explaining whether a 2023 complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and, if so, why the mandate on prompt registration was not followed.Taking a stern view in a pending PIL, the Bench had made it clear that a preliminary inquiry could not be stretched indefinitely or used as a substitute for investigation. The court had observed that the inquiry—initiated on a complaint dated May 29, 2023—was still pending, even as the State indicated it was nearing completion.Directing accountability at the highest administrative level, the Bench had ordered: “An affidavit of the Chief Secretary, Punjab, be filed stating as to whether the complaint, received in the year 2023, disclosed the cognizable offence or not. If yes, then why FIR was not lodged within the stipulated period of 15 days, as the maximum period permitted by the Apex Court the case of Latila Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh”Expressing dissatisfaction with the delay, the Bench had observed: “We see no reason, as to why the preliminary inquiry should take such a long period of time since its scope is restricted to ascertaining as to whether the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence punishable in law or not? Preliminary inquiry cannot be used to decipher the veracity of the allegations.”