In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.14402 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:17.11.2009 Gurdeep Singh .....Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. After the death of Jagir Singh, Lambardar of Village Majri, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, the process was initiated for filling-up the vacant post of Lambardar. In the consideration process the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector, Ludhiana vide order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure-P.1). Amrik Singh (respondent No.3) and Rajinder Singh (respondent No.4) aggrieved against the said order filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala who vide order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure-P.2) accepted the same and remanded the case for fresh decision. It was observed that the petitioner, who was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector was involved in a criminal case besides there was an allegation that he was in possession of panchayat land. This aspect, it was observed, was required to be looked into before appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of the village. Gurdeep Singh (petitioner) aggrieved against the said order filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, who vide order dated 16.12.2008 C.W.P. No.14402 of 2009 [2] (Annexure-P.3) has dismissed the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the Collector was liable to be set aside only if there was some perversity or irregularity in appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. Without recording the said finding the order of the Collector has wrongly been set side. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the matter has only been remanded by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure-P.2). The learned Commissioner in his order noticed the fact that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case and the said fact had not been denied in his written arguments, besides there were allegations of possession of panchayat land and conviction in criminal case against the petitioner. Therefore, all that the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala has done is that the case has been remanded to the District Collector to look into these aspects. The learned Financial Commissioner vide her order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure-P.3) has upheld the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to remand the case is untenable as the Financial Commissioner has only upheld the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala in remanding the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage cites Gurlal Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 792 (DB) (P&H). In terms of the said judgment it has been held that the Financial Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction and he could set aside the appointment of Lambardar if the same was illegal or there was some infirmity. There is no dispute with the said proposition. However, in C.W.P. No.14402 of 2009 [3] the present case the infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar has been duly noticed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, inasmuch as, the fact that the petitioner is involved in criminal case was not considered by the District Collector, Ludhiana while passing the order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure-P.1). The order passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala is the order passed in appeal and appeal as is well known is continuation of the original proceedings, Therefore, the Commissioner , Patiala Division, Patiala having exercised his appellate jurisdiction which has been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, it cannot be said that there is no illegality or perversity in the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar, inasmuch as, the fact regarding his involvement in criminal case and his being in possession of certain panchayat land has not been noticed. It may also be noticed that the order was passed by the Financial Commissioner on 16.12.2008 and the petitioner has filed the present petition on 14.9.2009. It is not borne out from the record that in consequence of the remand of the case what further proceedings have been taken. Therefore, no ground is made out, in any case, to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. November 17, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes