VIJAY KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of Lambardar of village Muradpur fell vacant on 30.01.2005 on account of the death of Lachhman Singh Lambardar. In order to fill up the said vacant post, the Naib Tehsildar, Mukerian, initiated the process by making a proclamation in the village and in response thereto, 12 persons submitted their applications including respondent no.4. The Naib Tehsildar, Mukerian, submitted the case to the Tehsildar, Mukerian on 24.05.2005, who recommended name of the petitioner for appointment, but the Sub Divisional Magistrate recommended name of respondent no.4 on 24.05.2005 to the Collector, who vide his order dated 24.08.2005 appointed him as Lambardar of the village. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 03.07.2006, against which he filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, who vide his order dated 24.12.2007 appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village and the Sanad was issued to him on 08.02.2008. Respondent no.4 filed a Review Application No.9/2008 before the Financial Commissioner which was also dismissed on 22.10.2008.

(2.) Respondent no.4 then filed CWP No.10143 of 2009 which was dismissed by the learned Singe Judge on 22.03.2011 against which he filed LPA No.342 of 2012, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Financial Commissioner to decide it again. The Financial Commissioner this time, vide his order dated 29.08.2014, appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent no.4 was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.153 dated 13.12.1999, under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Mukerian, in which he was convicted by the trial Court on 12.01.2006 but ultimately acquitted by the Appellate Authority on 21.02.2009. The Financial Commissioner, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sardool Singh vs. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 2001 1 RCR(Civ) 448, allowed the revision on the ground that at the relevant time when respondent no.4 was to be considered for the office of the Lambardar, there was only allegation against him and ultimately he has been acquitted.