PATNA, June 16 -- Days after the Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) carried out raids against IAS officer Sanjeev Hans, in connection with the alleged tender scam with Rishu Shree, he has written a four-page letter to SVU ADG Pankaj Kumar Darad as well as Vigilance Commissioner questioning the FIR lodged against him. The SVU had registered an FIR on April 30, 2025, against four named accused, including Rishu Shree; the then Water Resources Department secretary, Sanjeev Hans; Santosh Kumar, an employee of Rishu Shree; and Pawan Kumar, director of a private company, along with other unknown officials of the Bihar government, under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After 11 months, the IAS officer claimed that the case was registered without sufficient evidence and preliminary investigation is based on allegations similar to an earlier case that was quashed by the Patna High Court. He said the information shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) did not indicate any corruption or irregularity in the tender process. Defending himself, Hans said that tenders worth more than Rs. 3.5 crore are approved collectively by departmental tender committees and not by the secretary alone. He also said he had no connection with financial transactions between the companies mentioned in the FIR and questioned why he was made an accused without any direct evidence. Tenders were also awarded for related projects in accordance with the prescribed procedure technical evaluation and World Bank guidelines. He said the Birpur-based physical modelling centre project was part of the World Bank-sponsored scheme and its tender was given after the prescribed procedure, technical evaluation and World Bank approval. Tenders are given final approval only after technical and financial evaluation before tender allotment. In such a situation, it is not appropriate to hold one official personally responsible. IAS Hans in his letter said that nowhere in the information sent by the ED was it stated that there was any irregularity, corruption or wrongdoing in the tender process. No solid evidence of corruption was presented in the tender process. Despite this, he was named in the FIR. IAS Sanjeev claimed that he has been wrongfully accused, without sufficient evidence and preliminary investigation. He wrote that no concrete evidence of corruption was presented in the tender process. Despite this, he was named in the FIR. Seeking a fair and impartial probe, Hans urged the SVU to investigate the matter based on official records and facts, while assuring full cooperation. He wrote that the ED had quashed the Rupaspur police station case number 18/2023. The appeal related to the matter was later dismissed by the Supreme Court. Despite this, the ED sent information to the SVU and based on the same facts, a new FIR has been registered and he has been made an accused....