In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.9677 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:6.7.2009 Bhakha Singh alias Gurbax Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1) whereby the orders dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Collector, Kaithal (respondent No.3) and the order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (respondent No.2) have been set aside and direction has been given to hear both the parties, evaluate their merits and demerits and decide the issue afresh. Lambardar Gaje Singh of Village Noach died. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for filling-up the office of Lambardar on account of the death of Gaje Singh. Dharam Pal (respondent No.4) son of Gaje Singh laid his claim for the office of Lambardar. In all 11 applications were received including that of Dharam Pal (respondent No.4) and the petitioner Bhakha Singh. The Collector, Kaithal (respondent No.3) vide his order C.W.P. No.9677 of 2009 [2] dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure-P.1) found Bhakha Singh (petitioner) to be more meritorious than Dharam Pal (respondent No.4) and he was appointed. Dharam Pal (respondent No.4) aggrieved against the said order filed an appeal before the Commissioner (respondent No.2) which was dismissed on 26.3.2008 (Annexure-P.2). Aggrieved against the same Dharam Pal filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) who has vide impugned order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure-P.3) remanded the matter for fresh decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Dharam Pal (respondent No.4) was rightly non-suited in the consideration process for appointment as Lambardar by the Collector, Kaithal (respondent No.3) and his appeal before the Commissioner (respondent No.2) has also been dismissed. Therefore, the learned Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) was not liable to remand the matter back for fresh decision as there is no error or irregularity in the impugned orders (Annexures-P.1and P.2). It is also submitted that Dharam Pal (respondent No.4) was proceeded against in four criminal cases and even though he has been acquitted in the said cases he is not a suitable person to be appointed as Lambardar. In support of his contention, learned counsel cites Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, (2005-2) PLR 306 (DB) (P&H). Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner whereby the case has been remanded be set aside and that of the Collector (respondent No.3) and Commissioner (respondent No.2) be restored and upheld. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) in his order C.W.P. No.9677 of 2009 [3] dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure-P.3) has noticed that the father of Dharam Pal (respondent No.4) was a Lambardar. Besides, the Police report had mentioned that the petitioner Bhakha Singh was in unauthorized possession. The said report had not been considered. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent No.4 Dharam Pal that the petitioner resides in a Dera which is 3½ kms. away from the main `Abadi' of the village. Respondent No.4 Dharam Pal had been acquitted in the criminal cases. The said facts in the opinion of the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) were liable to be taken into consideration in the decision making process. The said circumstances indeed are liable to be taken into consideration while considering the case and in case these are taken into consideration, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties. The fact that respondent No.4 Dharam Pal has been involved in criminal cases and his acquittal in the same is also a circumstance which is liable to be taken into consideration by the authorities. In Jog Dhian's case (supra) this Court observed 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. But at the same time, such a person 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 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 thereafter acquitted is yet to carry the stigma of his being tried in a C.W.P. No.9677 of 2009 [4] criminal case. These are circumstances which would require consideration by the 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. In the circumstances, there is no error in the order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) in remanding the matter for reconsideration of the entire facts and circumstances. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. July 6, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No