PSIC seeks vigilance probe into Ferozepur panchayat records.

Times of India : Vinod Kumar: Chandigadh: Tuesday : August 11, 2026.

The Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) has recommended an independent vigilance examination of the handling and preservation of panchayat records in Ferozepur, observing that “misuse of govt funds” could not be ruled out and officials appeared to be “hand in glove” in delaying disclosure of records.

The commission, while disposing of a second appeal under the RTI Act, also recommended disciplinary action against the block development and panchayat officer (BDPO), panchayat secretary and concerned sarpanches for prima facie negligence and dereliction of duty. The case arose from a June 2022 RTI application seeking records relating to 10 villages under the BDPO, Ferozepur.

Despite repeated hearings over nearly four years, the appellant maintained that complete information had not been provided. During hearings in 2023, the panchayat secretary repeatedly assured the commission that the information would be furnished. The BDPO, the designated public information officer, remained absent on several occasions, prompting a show-cause notice. Continued non-appearance eventually led to bailable warrants against the BDPO-cum-PIO in May 2025 and Rs 5,000 compensation to the appellant.

The BDPO later offered inspection of the records, but the appellant said he was not facilitated to inspect them. The commission again issued bailable warrants following non-appearance at a subsequent hearing. The commission noted that sarpanches of nine of the 10 villages had not handed over panchayat records to the authorities.

The matter was referred by the SDM, Ferozepur, to police for action under the Punjab Panchayat Act, 1994, but no progress was available on record. It also examined an affidavit from the panchayat secretary claiming records of six gram panchayats had been destroyed in floods. The commission found the explanation “unsatisfactory”, noting that a DDR concerning the missing or damaged records was lodged only on Nov 30, 2023 — more than a year after the RTI application. While the DDR covered six villages, no satisfactory explanation was given for records of the remaining four.

The commission also found that no audit or verification of missing records appeared to have been conducted. The commission cited a March 2026 letter from the BDPO to the director, rural development and panchayats, stating that the panchayat secretary had neither submitted records of six gram panchayats for audit nor handed them over to the incumbent secretary.

The BDPO had recommended disciplinary action against him. Observing that the BDPO office and panchayat secretary appeared to be “hand in glove” and were misleading the Punjab State Information Commission, the department and the appellant, the commission said “misuse of govt funds” could not be ruled out as the secretary was allegedly evading audit while delaying disclosure under the RTI Act.

The commission said the BDPO was responsible for supervising panchayat records, the secretary for maintaining them and the sarpanch for their custody, making all three prima facie responsible for their preservation and availability.