In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.10410 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:16.7.2009 Amrik Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioners is that the fact that Manjit Singh (respondent No.5) has been summoned in a complaint case in terms of order dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II Class, Fatehgarh Sahib has not been considered by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I), Punjab, Chandigarh while passing the order 22.7.2008 (Annexure-P.4). In the consideration process for appointment of Lambardar of Village Jandali the contest has been between the petitioner Amrik Singh and his brother Manjit Singh (respondent No.5). The District Collector in her order dated 6.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) found respondent No.5 to be more suitable and appointed him as Lambardar. The choice of the Collector was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 25.3.2008 (Annexure-P.2). The petitioner aggrieved against the same C.W.P. No.10410 of 2009 [2] preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who has dismissed the same vide order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure-P.4). It was observed by the learned Financial Commissioner that a perusal of the orders of the Collector as well as the Commissioner indicate that both the candidates were sons of the same Lambardar whose vacancy was to be filled-up and in the comparison of candidates the candidate i.e. respondent No.5, who has been appointed, was better educated and better placed compared to the petitioner. Accordingly, no justification was found for entertaining the revision petition which has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II Class, Fategarh Sahib whereby respondent No.5 has been summoned in a criminal complaint case was brought to the notice of the learned Financial Commissioner. However, the same has not been adverted to. In any case, it is submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 16(ii)(a) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1887 (`Rules' – for short) when criminal proceedings have been taken against a headman, which shows that he is unfit he can be dismissed. Therefore, it is submitted that the fact that respondent No.5 was summoned in a criminal complaint was liable to be taken into consideration by the learned Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P4). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the order dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II Class, Fatehgarh Sahib was not there when the District Collector had passed the order dated 6.12.2007 in which she found respondent No.5 to be a better candidate for the office of Lambardar. C.W.P. No.10410 of 2009 [3] The same was also not there at the time of passing the order dated 25.3.2008 (Annexure-P.2) by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The order summoning the petitioner for the offences under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was passed on 10.5.2008 (Annexure-P.3). There is nothing on record to show that the said order was on record before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab. However, it may be noticed that in terms of Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (`Act' – for short) it is provided that the Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any revenue officer subordinate to him. Section 16 of the Act provides for powers to call for, examine and revise the proceedings before the Revenue Officers. Therefore, the same primarily confers on the Financial Commissioner the powers in the nature of revisional jurisdiction to correct the orders that are passed by the subordinate revenue authorities. The summoning of respondent No.5 in the criminal complaint is an event subsequent to the consideration process by the Collector and Commissioner whereby respondent No.5 has been appointed as the Lambardar of the village. Rule 16(ii)(a) of the Rules, on which the petitioner relies reads as under:- “16. Dismissal of headman:- (i) xx xx xx (ii)A headman may be dismissed when - (a) criminal proceedings which have been taken against him shows that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office. (b) to (g) xx xx xx xx” Therefore, in terms of the above rule a headman may be dismissed C.W.P. No.10410 of 2009 [4] when criminal proceedings which have been taken against him shows that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office. The said consideration process is to be undertaken by the competent revenue authorities and this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to examine the veracity of facts and ascertain whether the criminal proceedings which have been initiated against respondent No.5 in pursuance of an order dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure-P.3) are such that respondent No.5 is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office. This exercise is to be done by the concerned revenue authorities in accordance with law and the petitioner may, if so advised avail his remedy before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, there is no error of jurisdiction in the order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I), Punjab. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. July 16, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*/amit NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not: Yes/No