Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1035 (PNJ)

Jit Singh S/o Inder Singh v. Ajaib Singh s/o Inder Singh

2015-05-26

KARAN AVTAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER 1. This matter is being decided in compliance of order dated 11-4-2014 passed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5541 of 2011. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that District Collector, Muktsar vide order dated 8-2-2005 appointed Ajaib Singh as Lambardar .of village Kheowali, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar. Against this order, three appeals were filed before Commissioner, who vide order dated 28-2-2006 accepted the same and remanded the mater to District Collector. Against this order appeal (ROA No. 30/2006) filed by Ajaib Singh before this court was dismissed on 26-11-2007. Thereafter, the District Collector reheard the candidates and again appointed Ajaib Singh as Lambardar. This order was challenged in appeal by Jit Singh before Commissioner, who vide order dated 18-3-2010 dismissed the same. Thereafter two revision petitions ROR 409/10 and 410/10 were filed by Jit Singh and one Paramjit Kaur respectively before this court, which were also dismissed on 21-12-2010. Jit Singh filed a CWP No. 5541 of 2011 in Punjab & Haryana High Court in which Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 11-4-2011 set aside the order dated 21-12-2010 and remitted the matter to this court for deciding afresh. 3. Arguments of counsel for both the parties were heard on 5-5-2015. The order of the Hon’ble High Court remanding this case reads as follows:- “..Only argument raised before this court is that Ajaib Singh was convicted by competent court vide Annexure P-4 pursuant to an FIR registered against him. Admittedly, Jit Singh (petitioner) was also convicted in the said case. It appears, this aspect of the matter has not been clearly dealt with by the Financial Commissioner. Only reason assigned for upholding appointment of Ajaib Singh is that his conviction was way back in the year 1973, thus, would not be relevant. I am of the considered view that matter to be remanded to the same authority for decision afresh. The impugned order is, thus, set aside. Matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner for decision afresh after hearing the parties..” 4. Counsel for petitioner has argued that the conviction is for serious crime of conflicting grievous hurt under section 324 I.P.C., hence it is relevant even though it dates back to 1973, it disqualifies the respondent from being a Lambardar, hence, the appointment deserves to be set aside. Counsel for petitioner has argued that the conviction is for serious crime of conflicting grievous hurt under section 324 I.P.C., hence it is relevant even though it dates back to 1973, it disqualifies the respondent from being a Lambardar, hence, the appointment deserves to be set aside. Counsel for respondent has argued that the petitioner was a co-accused (at No. 1) in this case and was awarded a higher punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, as compared to respondent’s punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 8 months. Hence, any stigma attached to conviction would apply to the petitioner as well. Admittedly the fact of conviction was not brought to the notice of the Collector or Commissioner in this case; it came up before Financial Commissioner (Revenue) in ROR No. 409 of 2010. The High Court has held that the fact that this conviction occurred a long time ago would not be relevant. In this regard, the following precedents have been cited by learned counsels. In 1986 RRR 463 titled Kashmira Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, the High Court held that in view of the provisions of Rule 16 (i) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, which reads as follows :- “16 (i) a headman shall be dismissed when - (a) He is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or upwards or any heavier sentence; or (b), (c), (d)... (ii) A headman may be dismissed when - (a) Criminal proceeding which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office;” A conviction for an offence of causing hurt under section 325 IPC with a blunt: weapon which led to a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- did not render the incumbent of office unfit to discharge the duties of lambardar. In 1974 PLJ 476 Amrik Singh v. Sawarn Singh the High Court held that the disqualification proposed by Rule 16 for a serving Lambardar applies equally to a Lambardar to be freshly appointed. Further, it was observed that “it is clearly intended by Rule 16 of the Land Revenue Rules that conviction of less than one year should not be taken as a disqualification. 5. Further, it was observed that “it is clearly intended by Rule 16 of the Land Revenue Rules that conviction of less than one year should not be taken as a disqualification. 5. As regards the Iaps6 of time after a conviction, counsel cited 1957 PLJ 38 Kartar Kaur v. Bhagwan Singh, in which the Financial Commissioner held that “a person who was convicted and sentenced many years ago and since has been conducting himself without any blemish can be considered for appointment as lambardar.” Similarly, in 1959 PLJ 103, Harnam Singh v. Karam Chand, it was held by the Financial Commissioner that conviction and sentence many years ago does not dis-entitle a candidate from being appointed a Lambardar. 6. In the present case both contesting candidates were convicted by the same order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda dated 24-11-1973. However, Jit Singh petitioner was sentenced for one year of rigorous imprisonment and fine, which falls within the ambit of Rule 16. On the other hand, Ajaib Singh respondent was sentenced to 8 months rigorous imprisonment and fine, which is less than the bar prescribed in Rule 16. Hence, even if this sentence were to be taken into consideration it would not render the order of the Collector appointing him as lambardar, illegal. 7. A perusal of the record shows that this order of conviction was not placed on record by either party during the entire course of proceedings that had culminated in the Financial Commissioner’s order dated 26-11-07 against which a civil writ petition No. 2379 of 2008 by Ajaib Singh (present petitioner) was dismissed as withdrawn on Feb., 18, 2008. It was only when the case came for revision before Financial Commissioner in ROR 409 of 2010 that this order of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda dated 24-11-73 was placed on record. The revenue officers appear to have overlooked the necessity of obtaining police verification reports of candidates in this case. This needs to be ensured to complete the background check of candidates keeping in view the provisions of Rules quoted above. Instructions be issued separately to all District objectors to ensure this in future. 8. As regards the present case, the impact of this conviction order is that it cannot affect the candidature of respondent Ajaib Singh who was appointed as lambardar. Hence, the order of Collector and Commissioner are upheld. Announced.