JUDGMENT Mr. Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral):- Costs have been deposited. 2. For Village Naro Majra, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, Lambardar was to be appointed for Dandu Patti. District Collector, Sangrur, vide order dated 17.7.2003 (Annexure P-4), appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The petitioner and one Sikander Singh carried appeals. Vide order dated 14.6.2005 (Annexure P-5), Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, dismissed both the appeals. Only petitioner carried a revision, which has been dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P-7), passed by Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab. 3. It needs to be noticed, at the first instance, that at the point in time when applications were invited for appointing Lambardar, a criminal case (FIR No.341 dated 8.12.2002 under Sections 447 and 427, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Malerkotla) was pending against respondent No.4 which, however, culminated in judgment of acquittal dated 7.5.2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Malerkotla. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while considering suitability, it is most important to consider the character of a person. Since a criminal case was pending against respondent No.4, he could not have been appointed and had to be considered unsuitable, although he might be eligible for appointment as Lambardar. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 states that the offence itself was of minor nature. Respondent No.4 has been acquitted and, therefore, no judicial notice of the said fact can be taken. 6. On perusal of the impugned orders, I find that revenue officers under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, have taken into account higher education and larger land holding of respondent No.4, while ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The character or antecedents of respondent No.4 have not been taken into account. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, [2005(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 378] : 2005(2) P.L.R. 306, and a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Gurdev Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, [2009(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3125] : 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 808, to contend that acquittal in a system of criminal trial would mean that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge. Involvement in a criminal case, however, is a stigma which is not completely washed out by acquittal. 8. Involvement in a criminal case, however, is a stigma which is not completely washed out by acquittal. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Gurbachan Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I), Punjab, 2001(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 22, to contend that no adverse inference can be drawn if a finding of guilt has not been recorded. 9. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In Jog Dhian’s case (supra), following has been held in para-13 (relevant portion):- “........ As mentioned above, it is admitted position, so specifically averred in the writ petition, that the petitioner was involved in a murder case, even though it is stated that he was acquitted, and which order was upheld by the High Court. It may be true that once an accused is acquitted on a criminal charge framed against him, even though by giving benefit of doubt, he is presumed to be innocent but at the same time, such a person cannot command respect from the public as, surely, the people cannot have much confidence and rely upon a person, who, even though, might have been acquitted but who has been tried for murder and remained in custody, either in judicial or police....” 11. In Gurdev Singh’s case (supra), in the context of effect of involvement in a criminal case, the following has been held in para-8 (relevant portion):- “........ The way the Collector and other authorities have been wavering in passing one order and another would not speak well of them-- Respondent No.4 is highly qualified but he suffers an infirmity, being in Government service. It is certainly a factor which can be taken into consideration by the authorities while appointing him for the post of Lambardar--He is younger which is an advantage in his favour but he has not been able to maintain a clean record and had faced prosecution for a serious charge under Section 304B IPC--He may have earned acquittal but that in itself would not mean that he has maintained a clean record. In the cases of Kabul Singh (supra) (Kabul Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 313) and Jog Dhian (supra) (Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 658), two different Division Benches of this Court considered this aspect and came to take a view that even acquittal from a criminal charge would not be enough to ignore this fact while considering a person for appointment as Lambardar. After all, Lambardar is required to have a dealing with the people at large and they must have a confidence in Lambardar, which, to an extent, would get dented if someone has remained involved in a criminal case and is appointed--Acquittal in our system of criminal trial would mean that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge. ...........” 12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the judgment rendered in Gurbachan Singh’s case (supra), does not help the case of respondent No.4 insomuch as, this Court was considering facts which were not similar to the facts of this case. The private respondent in the said case was more meritorious. The case was dismissed in limine. 13. The judgment rendered in Jog Dhian’s case (supra) and subsequent judgment in Gurdev Singh’s case (supra) indicate detailed consideration of circumstances that would arise on involvement of a person in a criminal case. 14. This Court, in a subsequent judgement in Dharam Pal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, CWP 1143 of 2011, decided on 21.1.2011, = 2011(1) L.A.R. 418 (P&H), has held in the following terms:- “14. The duties of a headman have been provided under Rule 20 of the Rules. Rule 20, when extracted, reads as under:- “20. 14. This Court, in a subsequent judgement in Dharam Pal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, CWP 1143 of 2011, decided on 21.1.2011, = 2011(1) L.A.R. 418 (P&H), has held in the following terms:- “14. The duties of a headman have been provided under Rule 20 of the Rules. Rule 20, when extracted, reads as under:- “20. Duties of headman.- In addition to the duties imposed upon headman by law for any purpose, a headman shall-- (i) collect by due date all land revenue and all sums, recoverable as land revenue from the estate, or subdivision of an estate in which he holds office, and pay the same personally or by revenue money order or by remittance of currency notes through the post [or at places where treasury business is conducted by the {State Bank of India or any Scheduled Bank as notified by the State Government from time to time}, by cheque on a local Bank] at the place and time appointed in that behalf to the Revenue Officer or assignee empowered by Government to receive it; (ii) collect the rents and other income of the common land, and the account for them to the persons entitled thereto; (iii) acknowledge every payment received by him in the books of the landowners and tenants; (iv) defray joint expenses of the estate and render accounts thereof as may be duly required of him; (v) report to the Tehsildar the death or any assignee of land revenue or Government pensioner residing in the estate, or the marriage or remarriage of a female drawing a family pension and residing in the estate, or the absence of any such person for more than a year; (vi) report to the Tehsildar and Collector all encroachments on and injury to the roads, public streets and Government, Nazul and Panchayat land; (vii) report any injury to Government buildings made over to his charge; (viii) carry out, to the best of his ability, any orders that he may receive from the Collector requiring him to furnish information or to assist in providing on payment supplies or means of transport for troops or for officers of Government on duty; (ix) assist in such manner as the Collector may from time to time direct at all crop inspections, recording of mutations, surveys, preparation of records of right, or other revenue business carried on within the limits of the estate; (x) attend the summons of all authorities having jurisdiction in the estate, assist all officers of the Government in the execution of their public duties, supply, to the best of his ability any local information which those officers may require, and generally act for the landowners, tenants and residents of the estate or sub-division of the estate in which he holds office in their relations with Government; (xi) report to the Patwari any outbreak of disease among animals [or human beings; (xii) report to the Patwari the deaths of any right-holders in their estates; (xiii) report any breach or cut in a Government irrigation canal or channel to the nearest canal officer, or canal Patwari; (xiv) under the general or special directions of the Collector, assist by the use of his personal influence and otherwise all officers of Government and other persons, duly authorized by the Collector, in the collection and enrolment of recruits for military service whether combatant or non combatant; (xv) render all possible assistance to the village postman, while passing the night in the village, in safeguarding the cash and other valuables that he carried.” 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of provisions in Rules and the case law, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner does not call for any interference. A person such as petitioner who was involved in a case under Section 302 IPC cannot command any respect from public as, surely, the public cannot have confidence on the petitioner and rely on him. 16. Nature of duties as given out in Rule 20 extracted above require active association of the Lambardar with the residents of the area. The nature of duties requires that Lambardar knows the residents in the estate for carrying out his jobs. Without commanding respect and regard of the residents, the duties cannot be carried out. Surely, a person who has been tried for an offence as serious as under Section 302 IPC, cannot serve the purpose of the post held by him as he would be looked upon with suspicion. In such circumstances, I find that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, dismissing the petitioner, was not required to be reviewed, even though the petitioner has been acquitted, considering mandate of rule, particularly under Rule 16(ii)(a) of the Rules.” 15. The authorities are required to consider, not only the comparative merit of the candidates, but also the demerits in the claim of candidates. The suitability of a candidate is required to be considered and judged in the context of duties to be discharged by a Headman. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-7) are hereby quashed. The case is relegated to District Collector, Sangrur to reconsider the matter in the light of law, as mentioned above. 17. In view of the delay already caused, the District Collector is directed to take a final decision within 45 days of receipt of certified copy of this order. ----------0BSK0----------