TEHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 3/10/2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Sirsa, whereby the petitioner, who was working as a Lambardar of Village Kurungawali, District Sirsa, has been removed from the said post on the ground that he had identified two dead persons, appeal against which preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division (Camp at Sirsa) vide order dtd. 6/3/2018 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who was working as a Lambardar of Village Kurungawali, Tehsil and District Sirsa, could not have been removed from the said post merely because of the registration of two FIRs against him. He so asserts in the light of the fact that mere registration of an FIR or filing of a complaint would not be enough for terminating the services of a Lambardar. He asserts that since the FIRs, which were registered against the petitioner along with others i.e. the beneficiaries, stood quashed by this Court, there was no stigma attached to the petitioner. In support of this assertion, he has placed reliance upon the order dtd. 15/5/2015 passed in CRM-M-5106 of 2015 titled as Balkaran Singh Versus State of Haryana and others(Annexure P-l), wherein FIR No.106 dtd. 12/8/2014 registered under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Rori, Police District Sirsa, stood quashed on the basis of a compromise in the shape of affidavit dtd. 30/1/2015 and the order passed by this Court in Balkaran Singh Versus State of Haryana and others decided on 1/7/2015 (Annexure P-2), wherein FIR No.105 dtd. 12/8/2014 registered under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Rori, District Sirsa, stood quashed on the basis of a compromise. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kashmiri Lal Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Chandigarh and others 2012 (57) R.C.R. (Civil) 208 as also Shiv Dayal Versus The Financial Commissioner Haryana and others 2007 (27) S.CT. 167, where this Court had held that mere registration of an FIR or filing of a complaint cannot be a disqualification or if the person is acquitted, he would be entitled to the benefit. He contends that on the quashing of the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner stood washed and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be given the benefit of the judgment passed by this Court. The impugned orders, thus, cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments, on which he has placed reliance.