Civil Writ Petition No.18296 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18296 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.10.2011 Inderjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-Inderjit Singh son of Didar Singh, was appointed as a Lambardar of village Kukkar Pind, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, by the Collector vide order/Sanad dated 25.09.1989(Annexure P-1), in view of the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act and Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and Relevant Rules”). 2. Subsequently, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar, brought to the notice of the Collector that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years. In the wake of report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Collector issued show cause notice to the petitioner, as to why he should not be removed from the post of Lambardar. In pursuance thereof, he(petitioner) submitted the reply and admitted his conviction in the criminal case, but claimed that his sentence has been suspended by the High Court. Civil Writ Petition No.18296 of 2011 2 3. Taking into consideration the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of `10,000/- imposed upon the petitioner, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC and after following the due procedure, the Collector removed him from the post of Lambardar, by means of impugned order dated 05.02.2008(Annexure P-2). 4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2) of the Collector, the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, by virtue of impugned order dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure P-3). The revision petition filed by him was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner(AH) Punjab, through the medium of impugned order dated 11.12.2009(Annexure P-6). 5. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-6) and preferred the present civil writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the High Court has suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner, so, the Collector has committed a mistake in removing him from the post of Lambardar, sans merit. 8. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `10,000/-, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, by the Additional Sessions Judge. Rule 16 of the Relevant Rules postulates that a Headman/Lambardar can be removed on the basis of criminal case registered against him. The mere fact that his appeal against the Civil Writ Petition No.18296 of 2011 3 judgment of conviction/sentence is pending, in which sentence of imprisonment has been suspended by this Court, ipso facto is not a ground to retain him on the post of Lambardar, as urged on his behalf. 9. Moreover, the Collector, after issuing show cause notice, considering the reply and providing an opportunity of personal hearing, has rightly removed the petitioner from the post of Lambardar, on account of his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years in a criminal case under Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, as contemplated under Rule 16 of the Relevant Rules. 10. Not only that, the order (Annexure P-2) of the Collector was upheld by the Appellate/Revisional Authorities, through the medium of impugned orders (Annexures P-3 and P-6), respectively. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this respect. 12. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to assail the impugned orders(Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-6) . All the remaining routine contentions, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the authorities below. 13. Meaning thereby, the authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant behalf. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or Civil Writ Petition No.18296 of 2011 4 pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE