Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeal-Ii) ... on 17 December, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 4645 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 4645 of 2012
Date of decision : 17.12.2012
Dalbir Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Financial Commissioner (Appeal-II) Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab
for the State
Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 4
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Virsa Singh, Lambardar of the village Jogowal Jattan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was dismissed by the District Collector. The process to fill up the vacancy of Lambardar was initiated. The Collector after considering the recommendations appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 17.02.2004. The Collector while appointing the petitioner had observed that respondent No. 4 is a defaulter of the Cooperative Society Loan. The petitioner was working as temporary Lambardar and so found him better and appointed the petitioner.
Respondent No. 4 appealed against this order which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 25.07.2005. Thereafter, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4645 of 2012 2 revision before the Financial Commissioner who set aside the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner and accepted the revision of respondent No. 4 on 18.02.2009.
Against this order the petitioner approached this Court. His writ petition was allowed on 09.09.2010. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner was set aside. The case was remanded to the Financial Commissioner to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law. This Court found that the Financial Commissioner could go into the aspect whether conviction of the petitioner under Section 307 IPC after 27 years will be a material which would be relevant to take into account while considering his case for appointment as Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner was also required to see in case the respondent had defaulted in payment of any account or was accused of any embezzlement.
The Financial Commissioner after considering the case afresh has again appointed respondent No. 4. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 307 IPC which was 27 years ago, thereafter, he has maintained clean record. Counsel contends that this conviction can not be a disqualification or disadvantage for which the petitioner should be made to suffer. Otherwise also, counsel would plead that respondent No. 4 is accused of embezzlement and, hence, was not fit to be appointed as Lambardar.
In my view, the choice exercised by the Collector and Civil Writ Petition No. 4645 of 2012 3 upheld by the Commissioner was perverse. The conviction whether long ago will always carry stigma and is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration irrespective of passage of time. If a person has a clean record and is available, then he can be preferred to the person with criminal conviction who can be ignored. It is to be noticed that the petitioner would plead disadvantage and disqualification on the part of respondent No. 4 on account of he having not discharged the liability of loan of a Cooperative Society Bank whereas himself would seek that has conviction for an offence under Section 307 IPC be ignored. The sentence was imposed on the petitioner which was upheld by this Court even.
Accordingly, the Financial Commissioner in my view has rightly passed the order which may not call for any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
December 17, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) reena JUDGE