Civil Writ Petition No. 20488 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 20488 of 2009 Date of Order: 05.07.2010 Ranbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Satbir Singh Malik,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent no.4. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 20.07.2006, 01.02.2008 and 13.08.2009, passed by the Collector, Sonepat, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, respectively, appointing respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.4 could not be appointed as the Lambardar as he has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, for offences under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is argued that though respondent no.4 has been released on probation, the respondents are required to consider the conviction and only thereafter select the better candidate. Counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand submits that the choice of the Collector is final till such time as it is perverse, Civil Writ Petition No. 20488 of 2009 -2- arbitrary or illegal. In the absence of any such infirmity in the impugned orders, the present petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that as respondent no.4 has been released on probation and the offences do not involve moral turpitude his conviction is irrelevant. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Admittedly, respondent no.4 was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat on 29.07.2009 for commission of offences under Sections 323, 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, The mere fact that the offence complained of may not involve moral turpitude or that respondent no.4 has been released on probation, would not entitle respondent no.4 to claim that his conviction is irrelevant as a conviction is a significant fact that reflects upon the character of a candidate. It would, therefore, be appropriate to accept the writ petition, set aside the order dated 13.08.2009 and remit the matter to the Financial Commissioner, to decide the matter afresh after considering the affect of respondent no.4's conviction under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, Chandigarh, on 07.09.2010. July 05, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE