Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1202 (PNJ)

Gurdeep Singh v. Financial Commissioner

2011-05-16

JASBIR SINGH, RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2011
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 14.2.2011, dismissing CWP No.20201 of 2008, filed by the appellant. 2. As per facts on record, in the writ petition mentioned above, the appellant had laid challenge to an order dated 30.5.2008 (P8), vide which the Commissioner, Faridkot Division appointed the respondent No.2 as a Lambardar of village Ali Ke, tehsil Rampura Phul, district Bathinda. Further challenge was to an order dated 4.9.2008 (P9), vide which, revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. 3. In this case, appointment to the post of Lambardar in village Ali Ke is in dispute. Initially, applications were invited way back in the year 1991. Appellant was not a candidate at that time. Respondent No.2, Kartar Singh and Baljit Singh were the contesting candidates. The Collector, after getting recommendation from the lower revenue staff, appointed the respondent No.2 as a Lambardar of the village. Baljit Singh went in appeal, which was dismissed on 28.5.1993. Thereafter, he filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was allowed, appointment of the respondent No.2 as a Lambardar was set aside and the Collector was directed to look into the matter afresh. Then, the matter was again taken up by the Collector, who appointed the appellant as a Lambardar of the village. Matter went to the Commissioner in appeal, who again remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Collector, vide order dated 19.12.2006 again appointed the appellant as a Lambardar of the village. Respondent No.2 went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 30.5.2008. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The record shows that the appellant is a 40 years of age, owns 34 kanals of land and has studied upto 5th class. His name was recommended by SDM Rampura Phul. On the other hand, Gurdeep Singh, respondent No.1 is 41 years of age, owns 41 kanals 4 marlas of land and has studied upto Matrict. He is grandson of deceased Lambardar. His name was recommended by SDM Rampura Phul. On the other hand, Gurdeep Singh, respondent No.1 is 41 years of age, owns 41 kanals 4 marlas of land and has studied upto Matrict. He is grandson of deceased Lambardar. A criminal case FIR No.36 dated 10.6.1997 PS Phul under Section 324 IPC was registered against Gurdeep Singh, respondent No.1, and he was convicted and ordered to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. However, he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide his judgment dated 14.5.2003, by giving him the benefit of doubt. In the ruling reported in 2001(3)RCR(Civil) 265, it has been held that if a person is acquitted in the case after giving benefit of doubts on account of inadequate evidence, such a person can hardly deserves to be a Lambardar of the village. Further, Gurdeep Singh, respondent no.1, was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.2500/- to Ranjit Singh, plaintiff, by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul, vide his judgment dated 1.2.2006, in a defamatory case. Further, in the ruling reported in 1999(1) PLJ page 348, it has been held that “person appointed should be trustworthy, educated, should have good character ability and influence in the locality and who can maintain dignity of office of Lambardar. Thus, the Collector did not properly weigh the merits and demerits of the candidates. The appellant is more suitable as compared with respondent No.1. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and appoint Shri Bal Bahadur Singh, appellant as Lambardar of village Alike, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda.” As is evident from the contents of the order, reproduced above, the Commissioner looked into the comparative merits of both the candidates and then opined that respondent No.2 is a better candidate for the post in question. We have seen the order passed by the Collector, in which, the comparative merits of the candidates were not discussed. Candidature of respondent No.2 was negatived simply on the basis of a fact that under the provisions of Section 446 Cr.P.C., he had to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- for standing surety for an under-trial, who, subsequent thereto, failed to appear in the Court. The Financial Commissioner in revision petition filed by the appellant again discussed the matter threadbare. Candidature of respondent No.2 was negatived simply on the basis of a fact that under the provisions of Section 446 Cr.P.C., he had to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- for standing surety for an under-trial, who, subsequent thereto, failed to appear in the Court. The Financial Commissioner in revision petition filed by the appellant again discussed the matter threadbare. Pendency of the criminal cases against the appellant was looked into and it was also noted with concern that in civil proceedings, he had to pay compensation of Rs.2500/- to one Ranjit Singh in a case regarding defamation. The Financial Commissioner affirmed an order passed by the Commissioner. The appellant came in writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.2.2011. 5. It is contention of counsel for the appellant that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be taken against the appellant as a disqualification. Be that as it may, even without discussing that aspect, we feel that respondent No.2 is a meritorious candidate. Admittedly, he remained Lambardar of the village from 1992 to 1996. Thus, he had the working experience against the post of Lambardar. Not only as above, as has been noticed by the Commissioner, on merits, both the candidates, more or less possess the similar qualifications. Under the circumstances, even without taking note of the pendency of criminal case, it is a fact that the appellant had to pay compensation amount of Rs.2500/- to a fellow villager in a defamation suit. If that is so, we feel that even without discussing pendency of criminal case, the appellant was not a good candidate for the post of Lambardar. 7. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------