IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11653 of 2009 Date of decision : 5.8.2009 Ishwar Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 07.6.2006 (Annexure P2) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, whereby permission to reinstate the petitioner as Lambardar after review of the order of his termination has been declined and also for quashing the order dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1) in terms of which the revision petition of the petitioner has also been declined. The petitioner during the year 1992 was serving as Lambardar of village Gharrot, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad now District Palwal. On 29.10.1992 one general power of attorney (GPA) bearing vasika No.2856 was registered at Tehsil Hathin. The petitioner being Lambardar had signed the same as a witness. The petitioner had wrongly identified one Kamrudeen son of Sumer Khan resident of Kot, Tehsil Hathin as Mohd. Sharif. On the basis of CWP No. 11653 of 2009 2 the said general power of attorney, 25 kanals 6 marlas of land of Mohd. Sharif was sold. In this regard, FIR No.19 dated 27.1.1993 was registered at Police Station Hatin for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). In view of the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was removed from the office of Lambardar vide order dated 30.11.1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad. However, after trial of the case in FIR No.19 dated 27.1.1993, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2001. No appeal against the said order of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the petitioner was filed. The petitioner then approached the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad by way of a representation for review his order dated 30.11.1994, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the office of Lambardar. He sought his re- instatement as Lambardar. Proceedings were initiated for reviewing the order dated 30.11.1994. The Deputy Commissioner, Palwal (respondent No.3) forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) for grant of permission to review the order dated 30.11.1994. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2), however, vide order dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P2) declined to grant sanction for reviewing the order dated 30.11.1994 whereby the petitioner was removed from the office of Lambardar. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P2), whereby the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) had declined sanction to review the order dated 30.11.1994. The learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 3.3.2009 has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that once the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case for the offences for CWP No. 11653 of 2009 3 which he was charged vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2001, he is liable to be reinstated as Lambardar as the foundation of his removal does not exist. Therefore, the revenue authorities have gravely erred in not granting sanction for review of the order dated 30.11.1994. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner had identified one Kamrudeen son of Sumer Khan resident of Kot, Tehsil Hathin as Mohd. Sharif. He identified Kamrudeen as Mohd. Sharif on the general power of attorney bearing vasika No.2856 dated 29.10.1992 . The petitioner had signed as witness No.1. On the basis of the said general power of attorney, which was prepared; land measuring 25 kanals 6 marlas owned by Mohd. Sharif son of Mohd. Saddiq situated in village Reedka, Tehsil Hatin was sold. Regarding this, FIR No.19 dated 27.1.1993 was registered at Police Station Hatin for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. In view of the registration of FIR, the matter was inquired into by the District Collector and the petitioner was removed from the post of Lambardar vide order dated 30.11.1994. A perusal of the order dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P2), whereby sanction to review the order dated 30.11.1994 has been declined would show that it has been noticed that the petitioner had before the District Collector admitted that he had inadvertently committed a mistake and that he may be pardoned. He also admitted in his statement that he did not know anyone amongst both the parties. He had verified the general power of attorney on the asking of one of his natives of his village namely Sharvan Kumar, Advocate. It was observed that there was an important role of Lambardar in the Revenue Department and on his verification, the registration of documents was done. The petitioner had verified the land of village Reedka, whereas he was the Lambardar of village Gharrot. It was observed that he was not competent to make such a verification. The petitioner had misused his post CWP No. 11653 of 2009 4 and committed punishable offences. The Court had acquitted Kamruddin, Harun son of Sumer, Azaddin son of Kalwa, Abdul Razzaq son of Sumer and Ishwar Singh (petitioner) due to lack of evidence. It may be noticed that the order dated 30.11.1994 passed by the District Collector, Faridabad was not the subject matter of the criminal case. Accordingly, sanction to review the earlier order dated 30.11.1994 was declined by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon vide communication dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P2). The petitioner aggrieved against the same filed a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1). The learned Financial Commissioner after considering the matter observed that the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon had dismissed the request sent by the Deputy Commissionr, Mewat (now Palwal) for reviewing the order dated 30.11.1994 by passing a speaking order in which it had been clearly mentioned that the petitioner was removed from the office of Lambardar after holding a proper inquiry into the facts. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner had himself admitted in his statement that he was at fault and he signed on the general power of attorney at the instance of an Advocate. This according to the learned Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) bore testimony to the fact that the petitioner could put his signatures on the document without verifying and applying his mind and that too at the insistence of someone. Therefore, sanction to review the order dated 30.11.1994 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the office of Lambardar had been declined. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted and therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in service, is devoid of merit. A Division Bench of this Court in Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others (2005-2) PLR 306 has observed that it may be true that once an accused is acquitted on a criminal CWP No. 11653 of 2009 5 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. Therefore, the petitioner though has been acquitted due to lack of evidence but it is on record that he had attested the general power of attorney of Kamrudeen son of Sumer Khan by identifying him as Mohd. Sharif. Thereafter, on the basis of the said general power of attorney, the land of Mohd. Sharif measuring 25 kanals 6 marlas was sold. In the circumstances, there is no error of jurisdiction in the orders passed by the revenue authorities while declining sanction for reviewing the order dated 30.11.1994 passed by the District Collector, Faridabad whereby the petitioner was removed from the office of Lambardar. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities. The decision taken by the revenue authorities is not shown to be erroneous or perverse which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction. Consequently, there is not merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 5, 2009 amit