IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19653 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 15, 2011 Jatinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. None for respondent No.6. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Vide Order dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Muktsar, petitioner (Jatinder Singh) was appointed as Lambardar for village Sehna Khera, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar. Respondent No.5 (Niranjan CWP No.19653 of 2009 [2] Singh) and Respondent No.6 (Gurmeet Singh) carried appeals. The appeal filed by respondent No.5 has been accepted by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, vide Order dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) which is under challenge in this petition. 2. The appeal against order Annexure P-3 was filed only by petitioner, Jatinder Singh, to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, which has been dismissed vide other impugned Order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.5, Niranjan Singh, under the circumstances has been ordered to be appointed as Lambardar. 3. The conceded and accepted position as on date is that respondent No.5, Niranjan Singh, is facing trial in case FIR No.142 dated 29.6.2003 under Sections 426, 186, 332, 353, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station, Lambi. Although instructions were given for withdrawal from prosecution, the same was not allowed. 4. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.5 has to be accepted as not suitable for appointment of Lambardar. 5. In view of law laid down by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1143 of 2011 titled ‘Dharam Pal vs. Financial Commissioner, CWP No.19653 of 2009 [3] Haryana & others’, decided on 21.1.2011, there cannot be any dispute in regard to what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that even the petitioner cannot be accepted as Lambardar for the reason that a criminal complaint has been filed against the petitioner. After taking preliminary evidence, the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial. The petitioner evaded service of summons and therefore, warrant of arrest of the petitioner was issued. The case is entitled ‘Paramjit Kaur vs. Sukhpal Singh & others’ for commission of offence under Sections 341, 506 IPC. 7. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. 8. So far as the disability of respondent No.5 for appointment of Lambardar is concerned, there is no dispute in regard to the fact that at the point in time when applications for appointment of Lambardar were invited, a criminal case was pending against respondent No.5. Charges have been framed and respondent No.5 is facing trial. It is an FIR case and therefore, based on investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. So far as case against the CWP No.19653 of 2009 [4] petitioner is concerned, it is a private complaint that was filed in the year 2008 i.e. much after the applications for appointment of Lambardar were invited. 10. The appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, allowed the appeal of respondent No.5 only on the ground that District Magistrate, Malout vide a letter dated 3.11.2005 had directed the District Attorney for withdrawal of case against Niranjan Singh (respondent No.5) and therefore, in anticipation of such withdrawal, respondent No.5 had been accepted as better candidate. I am of the considered opinion that the said reason assigned by the appellant authority was uncalled for and clearly arbitrary, and unreasonable in nature. 11. The fact required to be considered was whether a particular candidate had some disability by way of pendency of a criminal case or not. Surely, criminal proceedings had been initiated against respondent No.5 in June 2003 in regard to which he was facing trial. It is not in dispute that after framing of charges, trial is going on. 12. The petitioner, to the contrary, was the choice of the Collector being the most CWP No.19653 of 2009 [5] meritorious candidate amongst eight applicants whose claims were considered while passing Order dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) by the Collector. Claim of respondent No.5 for appointment of Lambardar was rejected on the ground that FIR case was pending against the said respondent. Petitioner is 30 years of age, matric pass, owns 7 acres of land and his name had been recommended by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malout. 13. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I uphold the order passed by the Collector viz. Annexure P-1 dated 18.9.2007, and quash order dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner; and order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner. 14. The petition is accordingly allowed. 15. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that the private respondents or any other person would be at liberty to file an application for dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Lambardar under Rule 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules in case the trial Court convicts the petitioner. (AJAI LAMBA) March 15, 2011 JUDGE avin CWP No.19653 of 2009 [6] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?