In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.11228 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:29.7.2009 Ram Kishan .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the orders dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the order dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby the order dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Collector, Sonepat appointing Ram Kishan (petitioner) as Lambardar of Village Jharoth, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat has been set aside. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as the Lambardar by upholding the order dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure-P.1). On the death of Shri Kali Ram, the previous Lambardar, the office of Lambardar of Village Jharoth, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat fell vacant. A proclamation was made in Village Jharoth, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat inviting applications to fill-up the vacant post of Lambardar. Ram Kishan (petitioner) and Rajpal (respondent No.4) C.W.P. No.11228 of 2009 [2] submitted their applications for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. The Circle Revenue Officer recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, however, recommended the name of respondent No.4. The case was then sent to the District Collector, Sonepat (respondent No.3) for consideration, who vide order dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure-P.1) appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. The said order has been set aside in appeal by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak vide order dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure-P.2). The order of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak had been upheld by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure-P.3) which are assailed in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the order dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana are arbitrary and contrary to the view taken by this Court in several cases to the effect that choice of the Collector is to be respected and is normally not to be interfered with by the higher revenue authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner is more educated and a responsible retired government employee and has an unblemished government service of 39 years. Therefore, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner have gravely erred in setting aside the order of the District Collector. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar is normally not to be interfered C.W.P. No.11228 of 2009 [3] with unless there is some glaring irregularity or perversity in the order appointing the Lambardar. Nevertheless the statutory provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 provide for an appeal against the order of Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. An appeal as is well known is a continuation of the original proceedings and wherever a statutory appeal is provided for, the appellate Court does have the power to consider the merits of the case and substitute its decision for that of the subordinate Courts. The appellate Court under the Land Revenue Act can go into the facts of the case and the merits of the decision taken and that too in continuation of the original proceedings. The Collector, Sonepat on the comparative assessment of the candidates found that Ram Kishan (petitioner) is the elder son of the deceased Lambardar whereas Rajpal (respondent No.4) is the younger son of the deceased Lambardar Kali Ram. The land held by both was equal and both were residents of the village. It was also noticed that Ram Kishan (petitioner) had been acquitted in the criminal case and, therefore, he was not disqualified or ineligible for the post of Lambardar. Both the candidates were popular in the village and had shown keen interest in support of government schemes. However, Ram Kishan (petitioner) in comparison was found to be more educated and had a long experience of government service in his favour. Besides, the Circle Revenue Officer had also recommended his name. Therefore, Ram Kishan (petitioner) was appointed. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak then considered the merits of both the candidates. It was noticed that the Collector had ignored the fact that two criminal cases of serious nature were registered against Ram Kishan (petitioner). It was observed that Ram Kishan C.W.P. No.11228 of 2009 [4] (petitioner) had been acquitted of the charges but this stigma casts adverse reflection upon his character. Besides, Ram Kishan had been mostly out of the village due to his service while Rajpal (respondent No.4) was permanently residing in the village with his father. He was a young man of 48 years and had also given sufficient contribution towards Government programmes and schemes like Family Planning and Small Savings. Besides, there was nothing adverse against him. The village panchayat and all the Lambardars of the village had supported his candidature, which showed that he (Rajpal-respondent No.4) enjoyed good reputation in the village. The SDO (Civil) had also recommended his name for appointment as Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana endorsed the findings and conclusions reached at by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. It was noticed that the Collector had clearly ignored some important facts. It may be noticed that what weighed with the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner is that two criminal cases were registered against the petitioner in which he was acquitted. The fact that the petitioner had been acquitted in the two criminal cases would have some element of stigma against him which of course would be subject to the nature of cases and his involvement. A Division Bench of this Court in Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, (2005-2) PLR 306, held that it may be true that once an accused is acquitted on a criminal charge framed against him even though by giving benefit of doubt he is presumed to be innocent. However, at the same time, such a person, it was observed, cannot command respect from the public as surely, the people cannot have much confidence and rely upon a person, who, even though, might have been acquitted but who has been tried for C.W.P. No.11228 of 2009 [5] murder and remained in custody, either in judicial or police. There is no dispute to the said proposition. However, the facts and circumstances of each case on which the trial is based and an order of acquittal has been passed are to be taken into account and it cannot be said that merely because an accused who has been tried in a criminal case and acquitted is thereafter yet to carry the stigma of his being tried in a criminal case. These are circumstances which would require consideration by the revenue authorities after examining the facts and circumstances of the case. The circumstances leading to acquittal and whether the same would yet entail a stigma are to be considered in each case on the basis of material on record. An authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is required to take into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances of the case which are necessary and relevant in the decision making process. Besides, it is to act reasonably and fairly. In Jog Dhian's case (supra) the contender for the post of Lambardar had been acquitted of a murder charge by giving him benefit of doubt, besides, he had remained in judicial and police custody. Therefore, what is really relevant is the conduct of the candidate for the post of Lambardar who has been tried in a criminal case. The decision taken by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner is in consonance with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Jog Dhian's case (supra). This Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is concerned not with the decision reached at but with the decision making process. Besides, this Court in exercise of its judicial review cannot substitute its decision for that reached at by the revenue authorities after due consideration of the matter. The revenue authorities having found the son of the deceased Lambardar C.W.P. No.11228 of 2009 [6] Kali Ram (respondent No.4) to be more suitable would not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 29, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No