Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh Son Of Sh. Ombir Singh vs Financial Commissioner on 30 April, 2009
LPA No. 294 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 294 of 2009
Date of decision 30 .4.2009
Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Ombir Singh. ....Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Haryana and another ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA
Present: Mr. Jagat Singh ,Advocate for the appellant
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This is an appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgement dated 3.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing C.W.P.No.1679 of 2009 filed by the appellant- petitioner. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case. The appellant- petitioner was first considered on 15.2.2006 which order was set aside by the District Collector on 30.6.2006 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade who again appointed the appellant-petitioner on the post of Lambardar. However, the District Collector vide order dated 17.7.2007 set aside that order by taking into account the registration of a criminal case against the appellant- petitioner. The aforesaid order has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner on 20.2.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the LPA No. 294 of 2009 2 appellant- petitioner approached this Court and his petition has been dismissed.
The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the order passed by the statutory authorities holding that the petitioner was facing prosecution when his case for appointment was considered and therefore no fault could be found in the view taken by the statutory authorities.
We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length. It may be true that the learned Single Judge committed factual error while passing the order that on the date of consideration for the position of Lambardar he was facing prosecution. As a matter of fact the petitioner was acquitted on 28.3.2000 and consideration had taken place on 15.2.2006. However, the aforesaid mistake has not persuaded us to reach a different conclusion in our ultimate view because the case of the appellant- petitioner has been rightly considered when we examine the order in the light of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The District Collector has rightly appointed Mohan Lal as Lambdardar vide his order dated 17.10.2007 by taking into account the factum of prosecution in case FIR No.258 dated 10.10.1999 registered under Sections 148, 149, 32 and 302 IPC. He has opined that for the position of Lambardar, registration of a criminal case would be a relevant factor and it would not be justified to appoint him. On comparison he has found Mohan Lal more suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar being young, with good character and educated. It was further found that he was not a defaulter of Electricity Board or any financial corporation as was alleged by the appellant- petitioner. We are further of the view that Rule 15 of the Rules would not exclude consideration of a registration of criminal case alleging commission of an offence inter-alia under Section 302 IPC LPA No. 294 of 2009 3 although the appellant- petitioner has been acquitted. We find no merit in the appeal and are satisfied that no case for interference under clause X of the Letters Patent is made out. Dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar) Judge (H.S. Bhalla ) 30.4.2009 Judge okg