IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15479 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 02, 2011 Dilbag .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Paramvir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 16.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana; Order dated 14.11.2007 CWP No.15479 of 2009 [2] (Annexure P-2/T) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt.; and Order dated 27.2.2007 (Annexure P-3/T) passed by the Collector, Kaithal. 2. Facts in brief are that a vacancy for scheduled caste Lambardar was created for village Polar, Tehsil Sewan, District Kaithal, on account of bifurcation of two estates. Petitioner, Dilbag; respondent No.4, Vimal; and respondent No.5, Raju Ram contested for the same. 3. Collector, Kaithal, vide order, Annexure P-3/T, directed appointment of respondent No.5, Raju Ram, as Lambardar. Respondent No.4, Vimal and petitioner, Dilbag carried appeals before the Commissioner, whereupon the Commissioner, vide Order, Annexure P-2/T, accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.4, Vimal. Petitioner, Dilbag and respondent No.5, Raju Ram challenged the order of Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner. Financial Commissioner, vide Order Annexure P-1, has upheld the order appointing respondent No.4, Vimal, as Lambardar. 4. Respondent No.5, Raju Ram, is not in contest and has not filed any writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that he is only a Proforma respondent. CWP No.15479 of 2009 [3] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it has come on the record that respondent No.4, Vimal, was involved in a criminal case. After trial, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 7.9.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kaithal. The issue was required to be considered in the context of judgment rendered by this Court in 2005(2) PLR 306, Jog Dhian vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others. Particular reference has been made to Para 13 of the judgment. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has very vehemently argued that the said respondent is the youngest in age and benefit of the said fact has to be given. It has been argued that respondent No.4 is the most deserving candidate on account of his merit and therefore, no fault can be traced in the orders appointing the said respondent as Lambardar. 7. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. In Para 6 of the order (Annexure P-2/T) passed by the Commissioner, it has been mentioned that Vimal was involved in a criminal case. Weightage however has been given to other aspects of the matter, de hors the character of the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner, CWP No.15479 of 2009 [4] Haryana, has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner while saying that “though it is usually left to Collector to discuss the merits/ demerits of the candidates but the Commissioner has done a reasonable job and therefore, I do not find any reason to set aside the order of the Commissioner”. 9. Perusal of the order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner indicates that comparative merit of the candidates has not been considered. It was imperative for the Financial Commissioner to have addressed the issue of involvement of respondent No.4 in a criminal case. Merely saying that the Commissioner had “done a reasonable job” while affirming the order, does not serve the purpose of passing a reasoned order. 10. This Court has considered the issue in judgment dated 21.1.2011 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.1143 of 2011 titled ‘Dharam Pal vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others’. Following is the relevant portion which, when extracted, reads as under:- “9. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel in the context of his (petitioner’s) conduct and in the context of Rule 16 of the Rules, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. 10. Rule 16(ii) provides that a Headman CWP No.15479 of 2009 [5] may be dismissed when criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office. 11. A Lambardar is required to maintain the confidence and respect of the villagers, in view of nature of his duties. 12. The petitioner was involved in a crime of serious nature under Section 302/34 IPC and was taken in custody, and convicted after trial. In such circumstances clearly, case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 16(ii) (a). 13. The Division Bench of this Court considered the issue in 2005(2) PLR 306, Jog Dhian vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others. Following is the relevant portion from Para 13 of the judgment:- “........ As mentioned above, it is admitted position, so specifically averred in the writ petition, that the petitioner was involved in a murder case, even though it is stated that the was acquitted, and which order was upheld by the High Court. 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....” 14. The duties of a headman have been provided under Rule 20 of the Rules. Rule 20 when extracted reads as under:- “20. Duties of headman.- In addition to the duties imposed upon headman by law for any purpose, a headman shall— (i) collect by due date all land revenue and all sums, recoverable as land revenue from the estate, or sub-division of an estate in which he holds office, and pay the same personally or by revenue money order or by remittance of currency notes through the post [or at places where treasury business is conducted by the {State Bank of India or any Scheduled Bank as notified by the State Government from time to time}, by cheque on a local Bank] at the place and time appointed in that behalf to the Revenue Officer or assignee empowered by Government to receive it; CWP No.15479 of 2009 [6] (ii) collect the rents and other income of the common land, and the account for them to the persons entitled thereto; (iii) acknowledge every payment received by him in the books of the landowners and tenants; (iv) defray joint expenses of the estate and render accounts thereof as may be duly required of him; [(v) report to the Tehsildar the death or any assignee of land revenue or Government pensioner residing in the estate, or the marriage or re-marriage of a female drawing a family pension and residing in the estate, or the absence of any such person for more than a year]; [(vi) report to the Tehsildar and Collector all encroachments on and injury to the roads, public streets and Government, Nazul and Panchayat land;] (vii) report any injury to Government buildings made over to his charge; (viii) carry out, to the best of his ability, any orders that he may receive from the Collector requiring him to furnish information or to assist in providing on payment supplies or means of transport for troops or for officers of Government on duty; (ix) assist in such manner as the Collector may from time to time direct at all crop inspections, recording of mutations, surveys, preparation of records of right, or other revenue business carried on within the limits of the estate; (x) attend the summons of all authorities having jurisdiction in the estate, assist all officers of the Government in the execution of their public duties, supply, to the best of his ability any local information which those officers may require, and generally act for the landowners, tenants and residents of the estate or sub-division of the estate in which he holds office in their relations with Government; (xi) report to the Patwari any outbreak of disease among animals [or human beings]; (xii) report to the Patwari the deaths of any rightholders in their estates; (xiii) report any breach or cut in a Government irrigation canal or channel to the nearest canal officer, or canal Patwari; (xiv) under the general or special directions of the Collector, assist by the use of his personal CWP No.15479 of 2009 [7] influence and otherwise all officers of Government and other persons, duly authorised by the Collector, in the collection and enrolment of recruits for military service whether combatant or non-combatant; (xv) render all possible assistance to the village postman, while passing the night in the village, in safeguarding the cash and other valuables that he carried.” 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of provisions in Rules and the case law, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner does not call for any interference. A person such as petitioner who was involved in a case under Section 302 IPC cannot command any respect from public as, surely, the public cannot have confidence on the petitioner and rely on him. 16. Nature of duties as given out in Rule 20 extracted above require active association of the Lambardar with the residents of the area. The nature of duties requires that Lambardar knows the residents in the estate for carrying out his jobs. Without commanding respect and regard of the residents, the duties cannot be carried out. Surely, a person who has been tried for an offence as serious as under Section 302 IPC, cannot serve the purpose of the post held by him as he would be looked upon with suspicion. In such circumstances, I find that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, dismissing the petitioner, was not required to be reviewed, even though the petitioner has been acquitted, considering mandate of rule particularly under Rule 16(ii) (a) of the Rules. 17. The petition is dismissed.” 11. Since the order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner does not contain relevant discussion in regard to merits and demerits of the contesting candidates and the fact that respondent No.4 was involved in a CWP No.15479 of 2009 [8] criminal case, the matter is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, for re- adjudication, addressing the issue in the light of what has been said above. Order Annexure P-1 is hereby quashed. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed. 13. The parties shall appear before the Financial Commissioner on 23.2.2011. (AJAI LAMBA) February 02, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?