In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.11365 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:31.7.2009 Gurcharan Singh .....Petitioner v. The Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. On the demise of Shri Ujjagar Singh, Lambardar of Village Dullowal, Tehsil and District Kapurthala proceedings were initiated for filling the vacancy. A proclamation was made in the village and 17 candidates applied for the post of Lambardar. The revenue officials submitted their report with regard to the suitability of the candidates. The District Collector, Kapurthala in terms of his order dated 27.6.2006 (Annexure-P.3) after considering the comparative merit of each candidate found Jaswinder Singh (respondent No.4) to be eligible and accordingly he was appointed as Lambardar. As regards Gurcharan Singh (petitioner), it was observed that there are criminal cases pending against him. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the District Collector filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who in terms of his order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-P.10) found the petitioner more meritorious and suitable for appointment as Lambardar. It was observed that the District Collector had ignored the petitioner on the sole C.W.P. No.11365 of 2009 [2] ground that criminal cases were pending against him but the District Collector had failed to give necessary details of said pending cases. Jaswinder Singh (respondent No.4) aggrieved against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), who vide his order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.12) has remanded the case to the District Collector for fresh consideration. It was observed that there were two main crucial issues in this case – one is regarding criminal cases and the other regarding encroachment of public property. It was noticed that Gurcharan Singh (petitioner) had tried to say that criminal cases against him (Gurcharan Singh) stand disposed of. Regarding encroachment upon public property his (Gurcharan Singh's) counsel stated that as per report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurcharan Singh has not made any encroachment. The learned Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) was of the view that these issues require deep probe by examining the relevant documents and then bringing out clearly whether disqualification stands against any of the candidates based on either of these issues. Aggrieved against the order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.12) of the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the two issues which the learned Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) has observed need deep probe are in fact non-issues. It is submitted that there were three criminal cases against the petitioner and they were for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`Act' – for short). It is submitted that two of the cases have been disposed of vide orders dated 15.6.2007 (Annexure-P.1) and 22.9.2007 (Annexure-P.2). C.W.P. No.11365 of 2009 [3] Both the cases have been compounded and the petitioner has been acquitted. The third case is pending against the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Gurcharan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others, 2001(1) PLJ 254 (DB) (P&H) to contend that the plea that a candidate should not be considered to be suitable as a criminal case is pending against him has been held to be not tenable as only a case has been registered and no finding of guilt has been recorded. As regards the encroachment, it is submitted, that the Patwari conducted demarcation at the spot and his report (Annexure-P.4) would show that there is no encroachment on the part of the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Financial Commissioner has remanded the case for deep probe as regards the pendency of the criminal cases pending against the petitioner as also as regards the encroachment on public property. In the matters of Lambardari the choice of the District Collector is normally to be preferred and his choice is not to be lightly undone unless there is some grave error, irregularity, perversity or patent error in the appointment. In the present case Jaswinder Singh (respondent No.4) was the choice of the District Collector which has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar. The Financial Commissioner (Co- operation) has ordered for a re-look into the matter on the basis of the observations as made. The effect of the criminal cases and the nature of encroachment, if any, is to be considered and gone into by the District Collector on the basis of evidence and material as available and produced on record. The learned counsel has referred to the report (Annexure-P.4) of the Patwari to contend that there is no encroachment. However, before the C.W.P. No.11365 of 2009 [4] Financial Commissioner (Co-operation) a report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was referred to. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, these aspects would more appropriately be considered and gone into by the District Collector on the basis of evidence and material on record. In the judgment in Gurcharan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held that the contention that candidate should not be considered to be suitable for appointment as Lambardar as a criminal case was pending was held to be not tenable as only a case had been registered and no finding of guilt had been recorded and no adverse inference could be drawn at that stage. There is no dispute to the said proposition. However, this aspect would also be more appropriately be considered by the District Collector on the basis of the material, the nature of the allegations and the case that has been set-up. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 31, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes