JUDGMENT L. Hmingliana Tochhawang, I. A. S.—The present review application has been filed against the order of my learned predecessor dated 24-4-1971, whereby the appeal of the appellant/petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the second appeal did not lie. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this case are that a complaint was made by the residents of Bhoj Rehar estate against Shri Anokhi Ram Lambardar, which was enquired into by the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil) Kandaghat, who reported : "Since the lambardar is corrupt, indulge himself and others in litigation, disturbs the tranquility of the illaqua and possesses bad character, he should be straight away be dismissed." 3. On the basis of this report, the Collector, Simla vide order dated 13-2-1968, dismissed the said lambardar. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner who vide order dated 27-3-1968 rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the Collector. The petitioner, further being aggrieved of this order, filed an appeal before my learned predecessor, which was also rejected on technical ground, being incompetent, as second appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act did not lie. Against this order the present review petition has been filed before me, on the following main grounds :— (i) that the appeal was filed by a competent and of long standing, lawyer, the applicant is not to be penalised on that ground alone and the appeal could be treated as revision. (ii) that request was made to the Court, to treat the appeal as revision, but the same has sliped the notice of the learned Court. (iii) that the order dated 24-4-1971 may be reviewed and the appeal may kindly be treated as revision. 4. I have heard Shri Vidya Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Nishpakshi Naib Sadar Kanungo for the State on 25-7-1974. The counsel for the petitioner stressed upon the points taken in Review application and further argued that the present litigation against his client was the result of political rivalry going on in his circle. No doubt his client was convicted by the Magistrate 1st Class but he was acquitted by the Session Judge in appeal. He concluded that his client was and is still a man of good reputation and character and should be allowed to continue as Lambardar of the area. 5. No doubt his client was convicted by the Magistrate 1st Class but he was acquitted by the Session Judge in appeal. He concluded that his client was and is still a man of good reputation and character and should be allowed to continue as Lambardar of the area. 5. The State representative argued that the said lambardar was removed from the post of a lambardar by the Collector, on the thorough enquiry of the Sub-divisional Officer (C), who has reported him to be a man of bad character. He finally concluded that such person should not be retained on the respectable post of lambardar and the order of the Collector of the District, confirmed in appeal by the Revenue Commissioner, should be maintained. 6. After hearing the arguments of the parties, a report from the Deputy Commissioner-Collector, Solan was called for, on certain points which has been received and the case came up for final order to-day. 7. I have carefully gone through the entire record. It is a fact, that it was a second appeal, before my learned predecessor and it did not lie under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The appellant-petitioner, technically had no locus standi to file a second appeal. But it is also true that the appeal was written and filed by a senior and competent Advocate who was later on appointed the Honble Judge of the High Court. If the matter is thrashed and considered broadly and judiciously, it was not the fault of the appellant-petitioner and he should not be penalised for it. Thus, I find force in this review application, and hold that the appeal of the appellant-petitioner should have been treated as revision in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. With these observations, I hereby review the order of my learned predecessor dated 24-4-1971 and the same is hereby set aside and 1 take up this case as revision petition. 8. The sole subject-matter of this case is the dismissal of a lambardar. With these observations, I hereby review the order of my learned predecessor dated 24-4-1971 and the same is hereby set aside and 1 take up this case as revision petition. 8. The sole subject-matter of this case is the dismissal of a lambardar. It has been held in L. L. T. i960 (39) page 25 and various other judgments, that a lambardar holds an office under the State and he is appointed and dismissed by the Collector and paid remuneration under the Land Revenue Act and Rules, I am also of this view and observe that a lambardar holds a civil post under the State and his dismissal from the post attracts the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is held that lambardar is entitled to the protection, granted by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 9. Article 311 reads as under :— (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except alter an inquiry in which be has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and wiiere it is proposed after such inquiry to impose on him any such penalty, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry : Provided that this clause shall not apply— (a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has Jed to his conviction on a criminal charge ; or (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reason ably practicable to hold such inquiry ; or (c) Where the President or Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonally practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2) the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or to reduce him in rank shall be final. 10. The relevant sub-clause 2 of the above referred article envisages that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the person concerned, to show cause, against the action proposed to be taken against him. Reasonable opportunity has been interpreted in case, A. I. R. 1958 (SC) page 300, to include a last show cause notice against the punishment proposed to be inflicted on the person cancerned. The present lambardar, dismissed by the Collector was also entitled to the protection granted by article 311 (2). From the perusal of the entire case, it is revealed that no such, show cause notice or reasonable opportunity was given to the said lambardar, which should have been given to him against his dismissal. The order dated 13-2-68, of the Collector, dismissing the lambardar, does not speak that the said lambardar was even heard. I find on record, one application of the petitioner, dated 13-2-1968, in which he has requested the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Solan for an opportunity of early hearing, but no action seems to have been taken on this application. Thus it is proved that procedural mistake has been made and the petitioner has been condemned unheard. 11. Keeping in view the above dismussion I do not want to go into the other merits of the case at this stage, whether the said lambardar is a man of good or bad character and whether he is fit or not for the post of lambardar, but I find that proper procedure has not been followed and the Collector has acted with material irregularity while dismissing the said lambardar. 12. Accordingly, I hereby set aside the order dated 13-2-1968 of the Collector. The case is remanded to the Collector concerned for fresh decision according to the proper provision of law. However, it is directed that the said lambardar petitioner shall not discharge any function duties of a headman till the final decision by the competent authority. 13. Orders to be conveyed. Case remanded.