Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 339 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-03-12

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik J.:- The petitioner challenges the order dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab, upholding the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Lambardar on account of alleged attestation of an incomplete Shajra Nasab, resulting in alleged attestation of mutation. 2. Facts first. The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar in the year 1959. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 28.9.2006 alleging that he wrongly attested the incomplete Shajra Nasab . The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice to the effect that Shajra Nasab was prepared by the Patwari and he only attested the same. The Will was found to be a genuine document as per the order dated 21.5.2005 passed by the competent authority. However, reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the District Collector, Hoshiarpur-respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-1), thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Lambardar. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner vide Annexure P-2, but the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 11.7.2007 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner by way of revision petition, Annexure P-5 and the same was dismissed, vide order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure P-6). 3. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No. 14810 of 2009 before this Court, which was partly allowed vide order dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure P-7), remanding the matter back to the Financial Commissioner. Petitioner filed his written arguments vide Annexure P-8 specifically pointing out about the order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, to the effect that the Shajra Nasab, which was attested by the petitioner and on the basis of which, the mutation relating to the inheritance of Kehar Singh was sanctioned, has been found to be correct. No party was aggrieved in that regard, nor anybody was pursuing that litigation any further. The Will dated 1.12.2002 was also found to be a genuine document which was executed by Kehar Singh on the basis of which the mutation was sanctioned. However, without considering the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner and also the direction issued by this Court, the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 6.7.2012, again dismissed the revision of the petitioner, thereby upholding his removal order. Hence this writ petition. 4. However, without considering the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner and also the direction issued by this Court, the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 6.7.2012, again dismissed the revision of the petitioner, thereby upholding his removal order. Hence this writ petition. 4. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Financial Commissioner was duty bound to comply with the directions issued by this Court, which have neither been discussed nor discarded but simply ignored by the Financial Commissioner, while passing the impugned order. He further submits that once the matter, pertaining to the mutation, has attained finality between the parties and the Will has been found to be genuine, on the basis of which the mutation was sanctioned, the impugned orders removing the petitioner from the post of Lambardar were not sustainable in law. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition with exemplary costs as the Financial Commissioner has glaringly violated the categoric directions issued by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while trying to justify the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, submits that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. However, during the course of arguments, when a specific query was put as to why the clear directions issued by this Court were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 6.7.2012, learned counsel had no answer and rightly so, because the Financial Commissioner has altogether ignored the directions issued by this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition deserves to be allowed for more than one reasons, which are being recorded hereinafter. 8. While deciding CWP No. 14810 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, this Court remanded the matter to the Financial Commissioner, with the following observations and directions:- “The petitioner has been removed from the office of Lambardar on the allegation that he attested an incomplete Shajra Nasab that led to sanction of a wrong mutation based upon an unregistered will dated 2.12.2002. It appears that the legality and validity of the will, that forms the basis for the “Shajra Nasab’ has been affirmed by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, in his order dated 26.2.2007 passed in RA No. 195 of 2006 (Malkiat Kaur Vs. Pakhar Singh and others). This order was, apparently, not brought to the notice of the revenue officers while ordering the petitioner’s removal, from the post of Lambardar. As a consequence, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 25.3.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision filed by the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law after taken into consideration whether the will dated 1.12.2002 has been affirmed by the Commissioner and if so its effect on the allegations levelled against the petitioner within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 17.2.2011.” 9. In compliance of the above said order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed his written arguments dated 28.4.2011 (Annexure P-8), specifically pointing out in para 11 of his written arguments that this Court has passed the above said order dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure P-7) with specific directions, attaching a copy thereof. It was further highlighted on behalf of the petitioner that the matter regarding mutation has attained finality vide order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner. The Will dated 2.12.2002 executed by Kehar Singh was found to be genuine document, on the basis of which mutation was sanctioned. Nobody was feeling aggrieved because no further revision or appeal was filed in any competent court of law, against the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner. However, it seems that the Financial Commissioner did not even think it appropriate to consider both the above said material aspects of the matter, while passing his order, because of which the impugned order cannot be sustained. 10. At the time of passing the order dated 25.3.2009 dismissing the revision of the petitioner, the Financial Commissioner, in para 4 of the his order, observed as under:- “I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record of the case carefully. The petitioner had attested the Shajra Nasab without verifying the facts; hence he had committed an act of impropriety and negligence which deserve no relief. The petitioner had attested the Shajra Nasab without verifying the facts; hence he had committed an act of impropriety and negligence which deserve no relief. The District Collector had rightly ordered for his removal and the Commissioner had also affirmed the same. The above orders are not suffering from any illegality/irregularity which warrant any interference. Therefore dismiss the revision petition being have no base.” 11. The above said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No. 14810 of 2009, which was partly allowed by this Court, vide order dated 22.12.2010. Although the Financial Commissioner was well aware about the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by this Court, which also found mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order, yet the Financial Commissioner has neither discussed nor discarded, but altogether ignored the directions issued by this Court, which is clear from operative para 4 of the impugned order dated 6.7.2012 and the same reads as under:- “ I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also heard the Senior State counsel. I have thoroughly examined the record on file. It is true that the present petition and attested the Shajra Nasab without verifying the facts. Accordingly he had committed an act of impropriety and negligence. The orders of Commissioner and Collector are not suffering from any illegality which warrants any interference inspite of the fact that the will dated 2.12.2002 was affirmed by the Commissioner. The Lambardar’s prime duty was to correctly attest the Shajra Nasab independent of the above said will, I find no merit in the Revision petition and accordingly dismiss the same.” 12. A combined reading of the above said orders would show that the impugned order is not only a non speaking one, but the same also suffers from patent illegality and perversity, as well. It does not appeal to reason as to how and why the Financial Commissioner has illegally ignored the above said specific directions issued by this Court. No reason much less cogent reasons thereof, is forthcoming in support of the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner. It was least expected from the Financial Commissioner, nay, he was duty bound to ensure the meticulous compliance of the directions issued by this Court. No reason much less cogent reasons thereof, is forthcoming in support of the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner. It was least expected from the Financial Commissioner, nay, he was duty bound to ensure the meticulous compliance of the directions issued by this Court. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order is not only non speaking, illegal and perverse, but the same is contemptuous, as well. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 13. No other argument was raised. 14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed with costs, which are quantified at Rs.15,000/-. Costs shall be deposited by the concerned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, from his own pocket, with Punjab State Legal Services Authority, at an early date and in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which Secretary, Punjab State Legal Services Authority, shall apprise this Court by moving appropriate application. 15. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner, removing the petitioner from the post of Lambardar, are hereby ordered to be set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated as Lambardar. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.