HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18710 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2011 **** Gurdev Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a Lamberdar of Village Bagguwali, District Sirsa. An enquiry was held into the complaint received against the petitioner and he was found responsible for verifying the false old-age pension claim of one Surjit Kaur who had already died. That solitary instance led to the passing of the impugned order dated 06.02.2007 (Annexure P5) by the Collector, Sirsa removing the petitioner from the post of Lamberdar. (2). It may also be mentioned here that the old-age pension drawn by the family of deceased Surjit Kaur was got recovered as her son Mithu Singh deposited the said amount on 31.10.2006. (3). It is true that a Lamberdar is the most trusted watchdog of the District Administration at the village level and he is CWP No.18710 of 2010.doc - 2 – obligated to perform his duties with utmost care, honesty and integrity. Any dereliction of duties, deliberate or otherwise, must entail some penal consequences. However, removal from the office of Lamberdar for a solitary mistake appears to be too harsh especially when it has not been categorically held that the petitioner was the beneficiary of the alleged fraud. The distinction between an inadvertent mistake and a deliberately motivated action need to be drawn and kept in view by the Disciplinary Authority. Similarly, it is advisable for the State Government to suitably amend the Rules and prescribe alternative punishments as well. (4). In the totality of the circumstances, when no loss to the State Exchequer has been fortunately caused, I am of the considered view that it may not be expedient or desirable to remove the petitioner from the office of Lamberdar provided that he is not found guilty of this type of misdemeanour in more than on case. (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 06.02.2007, 17.02.2009 & 23.07.2010 (Annexures P5, P7 & P9, respectively) are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Sirsa to re-consider the whole matter and if it is found that there is no other instance of proven misconduct against the 2 CWP No.18710 of 2010.doc - 3 – petitioner except the one referred to in the impugned orders, the order of removal shall not be passed. However, the Collector shall be at liberty to impose any other adequate penalty on the petitioner, if so permissible under the Rules. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 25.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 3