- (1.) This Court by order dated 12.3.2012 had directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Sanaur, District Patiala (BDPO) to explain in writing the conduct and provision for issuing a patently bad notice under Section 19 the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It was ordered that in case there is no satisfactory explanation offered by way of affidavit, necessary legal consequences would follow, including direction to the controlling authority for initiation of strict disciplinary/departmental action against the BDPO for major misconduct. In response to the order, the BDPO, Sanaur has filed an affidavit dated 2.5.2012. Paras 2 to 4 of the affidavit read as under: 2. That the deponent received the letter dated 20.8.2010 from the office of District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala for calling a meeting of No-confidence Motion. In pursuance the above letter, the deponent vide letter dated 24.9.2010 issued notices to all the members of the Panchayat for 30.9.2010. The deponent has counted both the days i.e. the day on which notice was issued and the day on which meeting was to be held, in the seven days stipulated period for holding the meeting of No-Confidence Motion, because the deponent was under the impression that both these days may be counted in the stipulated period of 7 days, which were neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the reasons mentioned above. 3. That there was no pressure or influence of any political party upon the deponent. 4. That the deponent has the highest regard for the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as provisions of law and cannot even think of disobeying the same willingly or intentionally, if this Hon'ble Court is the view that the deponent has violated any provision of law. The deponent tenders unqualified and unconditional apology for the same. Faced with this frank admission by the BDPO that he carried an impression that both the days i.e. the date of notice and the date of meeting are to be excluded while giving 7 days clear notice of no confidence motion, and thus the mistake was committed. The BDPO however, says that this mistake was not occasioned by any pressure o influence of any political party on the deponent.
(2.) In the circumstances I direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab to consider issuing instructions to all the BDPOs performing statutory duties under Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 with regard to calculation of seven days clear notice required under Section 19 of the Act, especially in the light of the decisions of this Court in the cases of -Mohinder Khan v. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others, 2012 1 RCR(Civ) 695 (CWP. No. 17943 of 2010 decided on 15.11.2010)- and -Balwinder Singh Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 13121 of' 2011 decided on 26.7.2011)- so that there is no recurrence of such a horrible mistake in future. The BDPOs through the State of Punjab may be sensitized on the issue of calculation of seven days clear notice and in the event of failure to act in conformity with law in future, they may be visited with stringent judicial action in such cases that come up before this Court against faulty notices issued in wanton disregard to the law or on considerations other than law. With the above directions I dispose of the matter accordingly and drop further action against the BDPO as he must be by now sufficiently chastised. Let a copy of this order be given dasti duly authenticated by the Bench Secretary of this Court to Mr. Sushant Maim, Learned DAG, Punjab for onward transmission to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab for necessary action.;