TALIB MASIB Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSION PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar for village Chhangla, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Certain complaints were received against the petitioner to the effect that he is not easily available to the villagers and that he is a habitual offender and had been convicted twice in FIR cases. Considering the facts vide impugned order 22.4.2008 (Annexure P-1), District Collector, Hoshiarpur, dismissed the petitioner, however, taking into account only ground of repeated conviction of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority viz. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide Order dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure P2) and Revisional Authority viz. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, vide Order dated 3.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) have dismissed the Appeal and Revision of the petitioner, thereby upholding the order Annexure P-1 passed by Collector, Hoshiarpur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bonds. The conviction has been recorded only for offence under the Punjab Excise Act. Last conviction dates back to the year 2002. The complaint itself is belated. Nature of offence is minor and does not involve moral turpitude, and therefore, impugned orders are not justified. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied on 1985 R.R.R. 477 Narain Singh v. N.S. Cheema and, 1978 80 PunLR 149: The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and another v. T.R. Challappan, 1975 AIR(SC) 2216.

(3.) This Court in Narain Singh's case was considering a case under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. Narain Singh had been elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The election had been challenged on the ground that Narain Singh was disqualified from seeking election under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act in view of his conviction under the Punjab Excise Act which amounted to moral turpitude among other grounds. In regard to the issue whether conviction under the Punjab Excise Act would tantamount to moral turpitude, it has been held that Narain Singh had been found in possession of illicit liquor and only the said fact would not indicate that Narain Singh was of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society. It has also been considered that said person was the first offender and thereafter had been elected. Clearly, the facts of the case would not have any application to the facts of the present case.