Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Pal vs The District Collector on 21 January, 2011
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No. 98 of 2011 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 21.01.2011
Ram Pal
.... APPELLANT
Versus
The District Collector, Karnal and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 16.11.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 Rajinder Kumar (one of the candidates for the appointment of Lambardar) has been partly allowed; and while setting aside the order dated 18.8.2009, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dismissing the revision of respondent No.4, the matter has been remitted to the Financial Commissioner to re-consider the revision afresh in accordance with law within 3 months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. It has been specifically ordered that the Financial Commissioner would be at liberty to assess the merits of the parties and pass an order LPA No. 98 of 2011 -2- appointing the best candidate as a Lambardar.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order as well as the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The dispute in the present case is regarding the appointment of Lambardar of village Nissing, Tehsil and District Karnal. Initially, the Collector, Karnal, appointed one Shamsher Singh (respondent No.5) as Lambardar. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division (Camp at Karnal), set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh decision on three issues, namely : (i) Whether Shamsher Singh (respondent No.5) is an employee of Food & Supplies Department and if so, whether he will be available to the public? (ii) Whether Ram Pal (appellant), another candidate, is free from the liability of the village societies?; and (iii) Whether Rajinder Kumar (respondent No.4) has been acquitted in the criminal case registered against him?
The Collector, ignoring the acquittal of Rajinder Kumar, held that he was not eligible for being appointed as Lambardar and appellant Ram Pal was appointed as Lambardar. The order of the Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, though observed that respondent No.4 was acquitted of the charges, but held that since he was involved in a criminal case, therefore, it was not appropriate to appoint him as Lambardar of the village. The learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner and remitting the LPA No. 98 of 2011 -3- matter to him to re-consider the revision afresh, has observed that once respondent No.4 was acquitted of the charges, as none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case, it should not be taken as adverse factor against him and he cannot be deemed to be ineligible for being appointed as Lambardar. It has also been noticed that the Financial Commissioner has further non-suited respondent No.4 on the ground that his father and grand-father are in unauthorised possession of Panchayat property. It has been held that unauthorised possession of relatives, howsoever close, cannot visit a candidate with adverse consequences unless it is established that he has drawn benefit of their unauthorised possession. Since there was no such evidence, therefore, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner and remitted the matter to him to re-consider the revision afresh.
During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that respondent No.4 was acquitted in the criminal case, not by giving him benefit of doubt, but because of the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case. In view of this fact, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005 (2) PLR 306, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the candidate for the post of Lambardar was acquitted in a criminal case by giving him benefit of doubt and in the light of that, it was observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, stigma on the candidate was not completely washed out and in such case, LPA No. 98 of 2011 -4- the Collector should appoint other candidate as Lambardar, who equally has good record, without any blame. That judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order of remand, passed by the learned Single Judge. The comparative merit of all the candidates has already been ordered to be considered, while making the appointment of Lambardar.
No merit.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
January 21, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL )
ndj JUDGE