IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.21755 of 2011 Date of decision : 23.11.2011 Swaran Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner questions the orders dated 30.6.2009, 11.3.2010 & 9.11.2010. He faced allegations that he had wrongly identified a person who was holding a General Power of Attorney of one Sohan Singh, who expired on 8.8.2003. The transaction of alienating the land on the basis of such identification took place on 7.10.2003 after the death of the executor of the General Power of Attorney. The transaction was based on the strength of General Power of Attorney. The inquiry proceedings were held against the petitioner, in which the charge against him was established leading to the passing of the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner would have this Court to believe that he had merely identified Harchand Singh who was the holder of General Power of Attorney and had no idea about the death C.W.P.No.21755 of 2011 -2- of Sohan Singh, the executor of the General Power of Attorney. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has gravely erred in the discharge of his duties while identifying a person to permit alienation of land when such a person had no existing right to do so since the executor of the General Power of Attorney in favour of Harchand Singh had expired prior to the transaction of such alienation. The assignment of a Lambardar in which the involvement of public is required raises an expectation that the conduct of such a person should be free from blemish but if the facts of the case are to be seen then the petitioner had defaulted gravely in identifying the person who proclaimed himself to be having the authority to sell the land even though the executor of the General Power of Attorney had expired and the validity of the General Power of Attorney had been extinguished. The transactions of alienation of land having serious consequences, it was expected of the petitioner to be more responsible in identifying the persons who were involved in such transactions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR registered against the petitioner was cancelled and, therefore, the findings in the inquiry against the petitioner had no value in the eyes of law. I am afraid this contention is also without any merit, as the criminality of an act depends on the intent of a person accused of having committed an act, but in so far as the desirability of holding or continuing that assignment is concerned, the parameters are entirely different from the ones which go to lead the criminality of an act. C.W.P.No.21755 of 2011 -3- No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 23.11.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss