Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmiri Lal vs Financial Commissioner on 11 December, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 12422 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 12422 of 2011
Date of Decision: 11.12.2012
Kashmiri Lal
....Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab
for the State.
Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate
for respondent No. 4
****
RANJIT SINGH J.(ORAL):
On 17.01.2008, the Collector, Hoshiarpur appointed the petitioner as S.C. Lambardar against the newly created post of S.C. Lambardar of village Jalalpur, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. While appointing the petitioner, he has considered that respondent No. 4 was involved in a criminal case FIR No. 141 dated 03.08.2003 under Sections 420/406, 506 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, P.S. Bhaloth District Kapurthala. Respondent No. 4, thus, was not carrying good reputation. Respondent No. 4 had also remained in some judicial custody in the FIR noted above. He, however, filed an appeal against the order appointing the petitioner as S.C. Lambardar. The Commissioner accepted the said appeal on 14.08.2008 and Civil Writ Petition No. 12422 of 2011 2 appointed respondent No. 4 as S.C. Lambardar. The petitioner appealed against this order which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 27.10.2010 and thus he has filed the present petition.
Respondent No. 4 has filed reply. He pointed out that writ petition is liable to be dismissed as petitioner has now been involved in the FIR No. 33 dated 10.03.2010 under Sections 427/323/324/34 IPC P.S. Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. It is also pointed out that respondent No. 4 is 58 years of age at the time of appointment and is a graduate. He is Ex-serviceman and retired as honorary Naib Subedar from Indian Army. The petitioner is 5th class pass and was 42 years of age at the time of consideration for appointment. It is stated that he is labourer and is neither a social worker nor has any social background. Respondent No. 4, accordingly, pleads the the impugned orders are illegally preferred and so should be upheld.
The star argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 was involved in an FIR under Section 420 and 406 IPC at the time of consideration. Though he had been discharged but would still carry stigma irrespective of the fact of his discharge. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Kabul Singh vs. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 2006(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 313 and Gurdev Singh vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 808. As per counsel for the petitioner, some stigma still remains, in those cases where person is not harmoniously Civil Writ Petition No. 12422 of 2011 3 acquitted but is acquitted only on the ground of benefit of doubt.
The issue of this FIR against the petitioner and respondent No. 4 has been considered both by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The Commissioner found that respondent No. 4 who was appellant before him had acquired edge over the petitioner. The ground on which the claim of respondent No. 4 had been rejected was the FIR which was registered against him. The Commissioner found that the District Collector has erred in appreciating the settled principle that he had not suffered any indictment rather was acquitted of the charge as innocent. The Financial Commissioner had also considered this aspect and has agreed with the findings returned by the Commissioner. He has noticed that respondent No. 4 was discharged by JMIC being an innocent and thus the Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the District Collector and had appointed respondent No. 4 being more meritorious.
Division Bench of this Court in Kabul Singh's case (supra) has observed that person who is acquitted in the criminal case does not carry a clean record compared to a person who has a clean record. This order was passed in a case where the Court was not inclined to interfere on a petition filed by the person whose name was rejected for the post of Lambardar on the ground that he was involved in a case. These observations are in a different context. Here one the authorities have two persons one with clean record and other having a case in which he was involved than a person with clean record can be preferred. It is not that other is rejected as he Civil Writ Petition No. 12422 of 2011 4 carries a stigma. It is that the person has a better merit.
In Gurdev Singh's case (supra), the Court has observed that the candidate who is involved in a criminal case then his stigma is not completely washed out by his acquittal but those observations were made considering the facts in those cases. If the distinction between acquittal and convictions is not maintained and both are equated in this manner, obviously then acquittal would not meant anything but deem to be a conviction. In the present case respondent No. 4 had been discharged meaning thereby that he has not even been charged. No charge was framed against him. The submission is that respondent No. 4 could earn his discharge by paying the money which he allegedly took by sending a person abroad. This may not change the situation. Discharge is a discharge. There is no finding which can be read carrying stigma against respondent No. 4.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RANJIT SINGH)
December 11, 2012 JUDGE
reena