Kolkata, March 4 (NationPress) The office of the West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has submitted a comprehensive report to the Election Commission of India in New Delhi, drawing attention to intentional lapses by certain electoral registration officers (EROs) and assistant electoral registration officers (AEROs) during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the state.

The CEO’s office has recommended disciplinary measures for EROs and AEROs found culpable of these intentional failures, while noting that the final decision rests with the Commission.

“In its report to the Commission, the CEO’s office specifically pointed out instances where EROs and AEROs intentionally delayed the process of uploading voter documents during hearing sessions. The Commission's directive was explicit that such documents should be uploaded to the system on the same day they are received from voters. However, certain EROs and AEROs chose to postpone uploading these documents until the last minute, resulting in a significant number of documents being referred for judicial adjudication,” revealed a source from the CEO’s office.

He added that the report highlighted specific cases of these intentional delays, which ultimately resulted in the documents being sent for judicial adjudication.

On February 28, the final voters’ list for West Bengal was released, excluding approximately 60 lakh cases that had to be referred for judicial adjudication, with supplementary lists to be published based on the progress of these adjudications.

Earlier this week, a dispute erupted between the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) Officers’ Association and the CEO’s office concerning the dubious roles of certain EROs and AEROs throughout the revision process.

Initially, the association accused Chief Electoral Officer Manoj Kumar Agarwal of unfairly attributing the marking of certain names as “under adjudication” in the final electoral roll to the performance of EROs and AEROs.

Shortly after the officers’ body issued a statement on this matter, the CEO’s office countered the claims, asserting that it had not broadly blamed all under adjudication cases on EROs and AEROs.

“Nonetheless, a specific number of cases remained unresolved at the EROs/AEROs level and were, therefore, referred for adjudication, which can be verified. The WBCSEOA should not act as a spokesperson for officers under deemed deputation to the ECI. Making comments based on hearsay and attempting to undermine constitutional bodies or statutory authorities can lead to serious repercussions. Government employees are advised to operate within the boundaries set by applicable conduct rules,” the CEO’s office stated in their response.