In a strongly worded order on Wednesday, the commission said 26 cases had remained pending beyond the prescribed time limit, amounting to non-compliance with the Punjab Transparency and Accountability in Delivery of Public Services Act, 2018.
The Punjab Transparency and Accountability Commission (PTAC) has imposed a ₹10,000 penalty on Amritsar municipal corporation commissioner Bikramjeet Singh Shergill for the excessive pendency of cases relating to the sanction of residential building plans and revised building plans, while simultaneously issuing him a show-cause notice on possible disciplinary action.

In a strongly worded order on Wednesday, the commission said 26 cases had remained pending beyond the prescribed time limit, amounting to non-compliance with the Punjab Transparency and Accountability in Delivery of Public Services Act, 2018.
The commission also took exception to the commissioner’s failure to respond to an earlier show-cause notice issued on July 20, despite being directed to explain the reasons for the delay and the action taken to clear the backlog within seven days.
Shergill said he had not yet received the order from the commission. “As far as the reply to the earlier show-cause notice is concerned, I have already submitted my response, and there is no pendency,” he said.
According to the order, the sanction of building plans/revised residential building plans is a notified public service under the government’s February 5, 2019 notification. The commission observed that keeping applications pending beyond the statutory timeline constituted a “serious lapse” in the discharge of statutory duties.
The action is based on the Management Information System (MIS) report received from the office of the e-Naksha for July 2026, which showed 26 such cases in which the notified service had not been delivered within the prescribed timeframe.
The commission invoked Section 16(3) of the 2018 Act, under which a penalty of up to ₹10,000 per case can be imposed on a designated officer or any other officer involved in delivering a notified public service if the commission is satisfied that the officer failed to perform the duty without sufficient cause.
While noting that the maximum penalty could have been substantially higher if applied separately to each of the 26 cases, the commission said it was taking a “lenient and compassionate view” and imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on the commissioner.
The commission has sought an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be recommended against Shergill under the relevant provisions of the Act for non-compliance and administrative negligence leading to delays in service delivery.
The commissioner has been given 15 days to show cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended. He has also been directed to explain the reasons for the pendency and the measures taken to ensure disposal of the outstanding applications. The response is to be submitted to the commission through email within seven days of receipt of the notice.
The order stated, Shergill may seek a personal hearing through video conferencing. However, the commission warned that failure to submit a satisfactory response within the stipulated period could lead to further action under the Accountability Act.
The order has also been forwarded to the Amritsar deputy commissioner and additional deputy commissioner (general) for information and necessary action.