KASHMIRA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KASHMIRA Singh has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing order dated October 10, 1974, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, Chandigarh.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Kashmira Singh, petitioner, was appointed as lambardar in 1952. He had been discharging his duties honestly and diligently. As incident took place on December 15, 1966, in which Ajmer Singh son of Deva Singh was caused grievous hurt with blunt weapons. Kashmira Singh was one of the accused in this case. He was tried along with his co -accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh, and convicted under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. The appeal filed by Kashmira Singh against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, on December 15, 1967. Kashmira Singh was bound down under Sections 107/151, Code of Civil Procedure, to keep peace. Deva Singh, father of Ajmer Singh, moved an application before the Collector under rule 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (for short 'the Rules') for the removal of Kashmira Singh from the office of lambardar because of his conviction under section 325, Indian Penal Code. This application was forwarded to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) for enquiry and report. The Tehsildar, Amloh was asked to inquire into the complaint. He reported that the work and conduct of Kashmira Singh were satisfactory. The Assistant Collector made a report that the application had been filed to harass Kashmira Singh and there was nothing to show that he was not discharging his duties as a lambardar properly or had in any other way become unfit to hold this office. These recommendations were accepted by the Collector of District Patiala and he dismissed this application under rule 16 of the Rules, vide his order dated February 15, 1973. Dissatisfied Deva Singh filed an appeal, before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. It met the same fate and was dismissed on October 17, 1973. Deva Singh filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was allowed. Aggrieved, Kashmira Singh has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had been convicted on the charge of having caused hurt to Ajmer Singh. The allegations do not involve any moral turpitude. It was a plain case of hurt. Even the learned Sessions Judge while deciding the appeal has observed that there was no previous enmity between the parties and there was no motive for the attack. These facts show that the petitioner was not of such a character or temperament that he should not be allowed to continue as a lambardar. He has further contended that the Collector and the Commissioner perused all the facts and circumstances and had exercised their discretion in a very legal and just manner. The powers of the Financial Commissioner in revision are the same as are those of the High Court in revision under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The Financial Commissioner could not interfere with the orders of the subordinate revenue officers unless he had given a finding that the orders were perverse. It may be mentioned at this stage that during the pendency of the writ petition, Deva Singh expired and no application was made by anybody for being impleaded as a legal representative within 90 days of his death. Later on, an application was filed on November 22, 1982, by Chamel Singh son of Deva Singh for being impleaded as a respondent. Since this application was beyond 90 days I declined that application. 3. The crucial point to be determined is the scope of rule 16(ii)(a) of the Rules, which reads as under : - "16. Dismissal of headman : - -(i) A headman shall be dismissed when - - (a) he is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or upwards or to any heavier sentence; or (b), (c), (d), (e) .. ... .... ..... ...... (ii) A headman may be dismissed when - - (a) criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office; or .... ..". The allegations against the petitioner as brought out in the judgment of the learned Financial Commissioner were that he along with others confined Ajmer Singh in his house and caused him grievous blunt weapon injuries. The prosecution did not prove any motive for this assault. It means that the occurrence had taken place for some trifling reason. It was not a planned or calculated affair. The petitioner and the co -accused seem to have acted under an impulse. That shows lack of temperance or moderation. It does not indicate any criminality as such. In our social milieu such like quarrels do take place. So, many factors like lack of education, improper bringing up, inhospitable environments, inadequate recreational facilities lead to such outbursts. They are not necessarily the outcome of a thought out plan on the part of the accused. Therefore, a conviction for such an offence cannot render the incumbent of the office unfit to discharge the duties of a lambardar. No doubt, in Gurbachan Singh v. Executive Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, 1973 PLJ 157, this Court had held that the conviction under section 326, Indian Penal Code, involve moral turpitude and the convict was not fit to discharge the functions of sarpanch which included judicial functions. The lambardar has not to discharge any judicial functions. The experience has proved that he was not unfit to be a lambardar even after conviction. He was convicted in 1967 and had been continuously discharging the functions of a lambardar without any complaint. The Financial Commissioner has not mentioned that there was any complaint against the petitioner.