Civil Writ Petition No. 16790 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16790 of 2009 Date of Order: 15.07.2010 Hardial Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner(Co-operation) Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2 Mr. S.S.Nagra, Advocate for respondent no.3. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 18.09.2009 and 13.07.2007, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab, Chandigarh and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, respectively. Upon the demise of Harbans Singh Lambardar, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Lambardar of village Rasulpur Kalan, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. After appraisal of the merits of the candidates, the Collector directed the appointment of the petitioner as the Lambardar. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.3 and one Tejinder Singh filed two separate appeals, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar set aside the order passed by the Collector and ordered the appointment of respondent no.3 as the Lambardar on the ground that the Civil Writ Petition No. 16790 of 2009 -2- petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch for corruption and had failed to disclose the pendency of criminal trials against him. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Financial commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch, his suspension was revoked as the enquiry initiated against him was found to be baseless. In addition, the FIRs registered against the petitioner have been dropped and, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner, ignoring these facts is illegal and void. It is further submitted that the summoning of petitioner, as an accused pursuant to an order passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is immaterial as the petitioner has neither been convicted nor sentenced. Counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, submits that the criminal record of the petitioner disentitles him to appointment as the Lambardar. The petitioner concealed the fact that he has been summoned by way of an order passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As respondent no.3 has no criminal record much less any pending trial, the impugned orders should be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It is an established principle that the choice of the collector is final unless it is demonstrably, arbitrary, perverse or violative of any law. Where, however, it comes to the notice of an appellate or revisional authority that evidence having a material bearing on the choice of the Collector has been ignored or concealed. the appellate and or the revisional authority may in the exercise of their jurisdiction consider such evidence and record an opinion as to the merits of the parties. The suspension of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch was undoubtedly Civil Writ Petition No. 16790 of 2009 -3- revoked and the FIRs lodged against him were cancelled. However, the petitioner concealed a material fact that he has been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stand trial along with the already arraigned accused. The summoning of the petitioner may not by itself be sufficient to reject his candidature but as this order was concealed and the other candidate has no criminal record, respondent no.3 was rightly granted precedence. It would be necessary to emphasise that the post of Lambardar is a post of responsibility, in a village. A Lambardar, identifies residents, attests documents, assists the police in investigation. Thus, where a choice has to be made between a candidate facing a criminal trial and a candidate who has an unblemished record, the latter candidate, in my considered opinion, must necessarily be afforded precedence. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, I find no error in the orders passed by the Commissioner appointing respondent no.3 as a Lambardar and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner affirming his appointment. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. July 15, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE