MAJOR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18770 of 2008 (Major Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh) and 20225 of 2008 (Surjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh).

(2.) THE facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 18770 of 2008. Gurdas Singh, who was Lambardar of Village Majara Nau Abad, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr, was removed from his post. Process to fill the post of Lambardar was initiated. The Collector had appointed petitioner, Major Singh, as Sarbrah Lambardar and he accordingly had been working as such since 6.2.2001. Five persons, including the petitioner and respondent, Gian Singh and one Surjit Singh, (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 20225 of 2008), applied for the said post. The District Collector then, after due verification of the character, appointed petitioner, Major Singh, as Lambardar on 25.3.2004. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against this order before Commissioner, who allowed the same and set-aside the appointment of petitioner as Lambardar. In his place, the Commissioner appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the Village, finding him more meritorious. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, who initially granted stay in favour of the petitioner but has dismissed the petition on 5.10.2007. The prayer to review the order was also declined on 19.9.2008 and, thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) MR . Satinder Khanna, counsel for respondent No. 4, however, would justify the order passed by the Commissioner. He would refer to the preliminary submissions made in the reply to say that the petitioner does not deserve to be heard on merits as he had made an attempt to mislead the Courts. In this regard, the counsel would point out that the petitioner had projected himself to be an ex-Sarpanch before the Financial Commissioner, which was factually wrong. The petitioner had stated that he was graduate whereas he was only 10+2 pass. The counsel made a strong grievance of the fact that the petitioner had mentioned that respondent No. 4 was involved in criminal cases but did not disclose the fact that the respondent was subsequently acquitted. He accordingly would submit that the petitioner had made an attempt to mislead and so does not deserve to be heard on merit. The counsel pleaded that the writ petition should be dismissed on this ground alone as the petitioner has not approached the Courts with clean hands. On merits, the counsel has justified the order passed by the Commissioner, which has subsequently been upheld by the Financial Commissioner.