Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh S/O Sh.Swaran Singh vs The Financial Commissioner on 3 May, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 8171 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 8171 of 2012
Date of decision May 3 , 2012
Jarnail Singh s/o Sh.Swaran Singh,r/o village Salempur, Post Office
Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, Distt. Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar,
Punjab
....... Petitioner
Versus
The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab 3rd floor, Punjab Civil
Secretariat, Chandigarh and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment sNohould be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The writ petition challenges the order of the Financial Commissioner who has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner while remanding the matter for consideration for the advertisement of the post for Lambardar and start the selection process afresh. Before the Collector there were 3 candidates in fray, of whom the present petitioner was one. The Collector held that one Kirpal Singh was better qualified over the petitioner and another person Pal Singh. In the appeal to the Commissioner filed at the instance of Pal Singh, the Commissioner referred to the fact that there were 3 cases which were registered against the petitioner and in the fourth case for an alleged offence under Section 302 IPC summons had been issued to him. The Commissioner found that none of the candidates were suitable and therefore gave the direction for a fresh selection process. In a further CWP No. 8171 of 2012 2 revision by the petitioners, to the Financial Commissioner upheld the decision of the commissioner. The petitioner contends that all the Criminal cases ended with acquittal and there was no stigma attached to him. Learned counsel relies on a Division Bench ruling in Ram Pal Vs. The District Collector, Karnal 2011 (1) Land L.R. 499 where a Division Bench held that after a person was acquitted in a criminal case of all the charges, the cases should not be taken as adverse factor against such a person. A similar view was also held in a still earlier judgment in Gurbachan Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner in 2001 4 RCR (Civil) 22 that a mere registration of a case where no finding of guilt has been established could not be taken as constituting for an adverse report on the consideration for appointment.
2. As regards the four cases which are listed in the order of the Commissioner the counsel states that the fourth case referred to by the Commissioner was erroneous and there is no such case. I do not have the benefit of grounds of revision before the Financial Commissioner to see whether the petitioner had taken such a contention before the Financial Commissioner. Of the three cases one case was for an offence under Section 302 IPC where the case resulted in acquittal when the important prosecution witnesses who were cited as eye witnesses had turned hostile. In the second case for offence under Section 323 IPC where the petitioner was implicated as one who had indulged in the overt act and hitting a person in the stomach, all the witnesses again did not turn up. The trial Court did not find the witnesses supporting the case without inconsistency and therefore acquitted him. As regards the third case under Section 323 and 324, it was not a case of acquittal but a case where there had been a compounding of offences by the parties and the Court recorded the same finding that the offences were compoundable and therefore the CWP No. 8171 of 2012 3 party was entitled to an acquittal in terms of Section 323 IPC.
3. Any case that results in an acquittal cannot be taken against the party for consideration. A case where the parties have compromised the matter would still afford a ground of examine the cumstances when compounding was done. As regards the pendency of fourth criminal case referred to above, since I do not have any material before me, if a fresh advertisement process is issued the petitioner may also participate in such selection and he will be at liberty to adduce appropriate evidence. As of now an order passed by the Commissioner and the Financial commissioner directing a fresh consideration for selection ought to prevail. The only benefit that the petitioner shall have is that he shall not be taken as disqualified for applying afresh and if he also participates in the selection, the authority will duly consider any acquittal relevant only against cases where they culminated in tiral and it shall also examine where there was some materials available which will have a bearing on the person's influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtness which are still relevant under clause Rule 15 (d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The acquittal may not have a disqualification against a person for consideration but if there are independent facts available touching upon the integrity and other factors referred to in clause 15 (d), the authority will duly consider the same for appraising the suitability of the candidature of the petitioner.
4. With these observations the order which were impugned in the writ petition are maintained and the writ petition is disposed of.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 3, 2012 archana