Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 250 (PNJ)

Dharam Pal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana

2011-01-21

AJAI LAMBA

body2011
Judgment AJAI LAMBA, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Orders dated 31.7.2001 (Annexure P-1), 26.6.2006 (Annexure P-2), 3.7.2007 (Annexure P-3) and 25.9.2009 (Annexure P-4). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was appointed as Lambardar. Subsequently, however, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and after trial, was convicted. On account of conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from the post of Lambardar and the order was maintained uptill the revisional authority viz. Financial Commissioner, vide Orders Annexure P-1 to P-3. 3. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been acquitted by the appellate Court viz. High Court, therefore, in the changed circumstances, the petitioner filed a review application before the Financial Commissioner which has been dismissed. It has been argued that in view of acquittal of the petitioner, the disability has been removed and the petitioner has a right to be re-appointed/ continued as Lambardar, in view of judgment of acquittal. 4. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar of village Dhani Sheranwali Majra Dhani Jattan, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa by the Deputy Commissioner cum Collector, Sirsa. The petitioner was involved as an accused in FIR No.155 of 29.8.1995 for commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. The petitioner was further convicted after trial by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment dated 3.10.1997. 5. It seems that after conviction of the petitioner, residents of the village moved an application before the District Collector for removal of the petitioner on account of his conviction, sentence and incarceration in jail. Vide impugned Order dated 31.7.2001 (Annexure P-1), taking into account the facts situation, petitioner was dismissed from the post of Lambardari and Tehsildar Ellenabad was directed to initiate proceedings to fill up the vacant post. 6. Action has been taken while taking into account Rule 16(i) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (for short, the Rules), which provide that a Headman shall be dismissed when he is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or upwards or to any heavier sentence. Rather Rule 16(ii) provides that a Headman may be dismissed when criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office. Rather Rule 16(ii) provides that a Headman may be dismissed when criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office. Relevant portion of Rule 16 reads as under: 16. Dismissal of headmen. (i) A headman shall be dismissed when (a) he is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or upwards or to any heavier sentence; or xx xx xx xx (ii) A headman may be dismissed when  (a) criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office; or 7. The petitioner carried an appeal to Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar which has been dismissed vide Order dated 26.6.2006 (Annexure P-2), also impugned in this petition. The petitioner carried a revision which also has been dismissed vide Order dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure P-3). It appears that petitioner filed an appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, before this Court. The petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 10.8.2007. 8. In view of changed circumstances viz. acquittal of the petitioner, petitioner filed a review application before the Financial Commissioner. Review application however has been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that grounds in existence at the point in time when petitioner was dismissed from the post of Lambardari, were clearly sufficient to dismiss him. A new Lambardar had been appointed vide Order dated 1.1.2002. 9. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel in the context of his (petitioners) conduct and in the context of Rule 16 of the Rules, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. 10. Rule 16(ii) provides that a Headman may be dismissed when criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office. 11. A Lambardar is required to maintain the confidence and respect of the villagers, in view of nature of his duties. 12. The petitioner was involved in a crime of serious nature under Section 302/34 IPC and was taken in custody, and convicted after trial. In such circumstances clearly, case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 16(ii)(a). 13. The Division Bench of this Court considered the issue in 2005(2) PLR 306, Jog Dhian V/s. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others. 12. The petitioner was involved in a crime of serious nature under Section 302/34 IPC and was taken in custody, and convicted after trial. In such circumstances clearly, case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 16(ii)(a). 13. The Division Bench of this Court considered the issue in 2005(2) PLR 306, Jog Dhian V/s. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others. Following is the relevant portion from Para 13 of the judgment: ........ 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 the 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.... 14. The duties of a headman have been provided under Rule 20 of the Rules. Rule 20 when extracted reads as under: 20. 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 sub-division 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 re-marriage 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 authorised 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. 17. The petition is dismissed.