SATISH KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of Lambardar in Scheduled Caste category of village Shekhowal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, fell vacant on 22.7.1994 on account of death of one Gurdass Ram. Initially, when proclamation was made inviting applications to fill up the vacant post, Pritam Dass and Kharaiti Lal filed their applications. Pritam Dass was the jhfather of the petitioner. S.D.M, Garhshankar, recommended the name of Pritam Dass but the Collector, vide his order dated 13.3.1996, remanded the case back to the S.D.M Garhshankar, for inviting fresh applications as none of the candidate was found eligible for appointment. After the remand, fresh proclamation was done which attracted 8 applicants including the petitioner. At this stage, Pritam Dass did not contest. After completing necessary formalities, Tehsildar Garhshankar, recommended the name of the petitioner, who was ignored by the Collector on the ground that FIR No.169 dated 22.11.2000 under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC was registered against him.

(2.) Consequently, respondent No.4 was appointed as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste).

(3.) The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Collector by way of appeal which was allowed and he was appointed as Lambardar. Respondent No.4 filed appeal against the order of Divisional Commissioner. It was brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner that FIR No.169 dated 22.11.2000, registered against the petitioner at the instance of his wife, has been declared untraced and both the husband and wife are living happily with their two sons after misunderstanding between them was over but the Financial Commissioner allowed the appeal of respondent No.4 solely on the ground that once the FIR was registered against the petitioner, who though has been acquitted, but stigma still remains and such a person cannot be appointed as Lambardar.