Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 388 (JK)

Gh. Ahmad Bhat v. State Of J&K

2013-07-09

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2013
1. Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 06.06.2013, whereunder, the Jt. Financial Commissioner(AR) with the powers of Financial Commissioner(Revenue) has allowed the revision petition of private respondent and set aside the order dated 24.02.2005 passed by the Tehsildar, in terms of which, private respondent was placed under suspension. The impugned order is inter alia challenged on the ground that the allegations of corruption were leveled against the private respondent and matter remained pending before the authorities for a long time. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that private respondent is not eligible for being appointed as Lambardar in view of Rule 3 (x), as he is not able to read and write urdu. 2. Private respondent was placed under suspension by the Tehsildar. The authority in the impugned order has stated that the Tehsildar was competent to place the Lumberdar under suspension provided he had not deposited dues recovered by him into the Government Treasury. 3. Rule 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Lambardari Rules, 1980 (for short `Rules of 1980') is the only provision which authorizes Tehsildar to place a Lambardar under suspension. Rule 8 is taken note of: 2............ "Suspension of a Lambardar If a Lambardar fails to deposit any dues recovered by him into the Government Treasury during next month he shall be placed under suspension by the Tehsildar of the Tehsil concerned." 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not suspended on the allegation that he failed to deposit the dues recovered by him into the Government Treasury. The Tehsildar was thus lacking jurisdiction to place the private respondent under suspension. The allegations that corruption charges were leveled against him would not admittedly authorize the Tehsildar to place the private respondent under suspension in terms of the Rules of 1980. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that private respondent is not eligible, was not subject matter of proceedings before subordinate authorities. This issue cannot be raised in these proceedings. 6. On over all appreciation of the matter, it is held that the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Jt. Financial Commissioner(AR) with the powers of Financial Commissioner(Revenue) has directed that the private respondent would continue to work as Lumberdar till the election is held. 7. On over all appreciation of the matter, it is held that the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Jt. Financial Commissioner(AR) with the powers of Financial Commissioner(Revenue) has directed that the private respondent would continue to work as Lumberdar till the election is held. 7. For the above stated reasons, this petition is dismissed in limine alongwith connected CMPs.