Satpal vs Fianancial Commissioner and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition is to order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P-3), passed by Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

The District Collector, Yamunanagar, appointed petitioner-Satpal as Lambardar for Village Mohri, Sub Tehsil Bilaspur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar. Respondent No. 4-Dharampal carried an appeal before the Commissioner, which has been accepted, thereby appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. The petitioner carried a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has been dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, without doubt, the petitioner is involved in a criminal case, however, pendency of the criminal case would not, per se, dis-entitle the petitioner to appointment as Lambardar.

I have considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

If the comparative merit of respondent No. 4, who has been appointed as Lambardar by the Commissioner, which has been endorsed by the Financial Commissioner, is seen, respondent No. 4 has a larger land holding; is younger in age and is more educated. No disability or ineligibility can be traced or even argued in the context of the merit of respondent No. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is facing trial in a criminal case, which was lodged for commission of offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, however statedly, is now being tried for commission of an offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code.

This Court has considered the issue in CWP 1143 of 2011 (Dharam Pal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors.) decided on 21.1.2011. Following has been held in paras 13 to 17:

The Division Bench of this Court considered the issue in 2005(2) PLR 306, Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors. Following is the relevant portion from Para 13 of the judgment:

... As mentioned above, it is admitted position, so specifically averred in the writ petition, that the petitioner was involved in a murder case, even though it is stated that the was acquitted, and which order was upheld by the High Court. It may be true that once an accused is acquitted on a criminal charge framed against him, even though by giving benefit of doubt, he is presumed to be innocent but at the same time, such a person cannot command respect from the public as, surely, the people cannot have much confidence and rely upon a person, who, even though, might have been acquitted but who has been tried for murder and remained in custody, either in judicial or police....

The duties of a headman have been provided under Rule 20 of the Rules. Rule 20 when extracted reads as under:

Duties of headman.-In addition to the duties imposed upon headman by law for any purpose, a headman shall-

(i) collect by due date all land revenue and all sums, recoverable as land revenue from the estate, or sub-division of an estate in which he holds office, and pay the same personally or by revenue money order or by remittance of currency notes through the post [or at places where treasury business is conducted by the (State Bank of India or any Scheduled Bank as notified by the State Government from time to time), by cheque on a local Bank] at the place and time appointed in that behalf to the Revenue Officer or assignee empowered by Government to receive it;

(ii) collect the rents and other income of the common land, and the account for them to the persons entitled thereto;

(iii) acknowledge every payment received by him in the books of the landowners and tenants;

(iv) defray joint expenses of the estate and render accounts thereof as may be duly required of him;

(v) report to the Tehsildar the death or any assignee of land revenue or Government pensioner residing in the estate, or the marriage or re-marriage of a female drawing a family pension and residing in the estate, or the absence of any such person for more than a year];

(vi) report to the Tehsildar and Collector all encroachments on and injury to the roads, public streets and Government, Nazul and Panchayat land;]

(vii) report any injury to Government buildings made over to his charge;

(viii) carry out, to the best of his ability, any orders that he may receive from the Collector requiring him to furnish information or to assist in providing on payment supplies or means of transport for troops or for officers of Government on duty;

(ix) assist in such manner as the Collector may from time to time direct at all crop inspections, recording of mutations, surveys, preparation of records of right, or other revenue business carried on within the limits of the estate;

(x) attend the summons of all authorities having jurisdiction in the estate, assist all officers of the Government in the execution of their public duties, supply, to the best of his ability any local information which those officers may require, and generally act for the landowners, tenants and residents of the estate or sub-division of the estate in which he holds office in their relations with Government;

(xi) report to the Patwari any outbreak of disease among animals [or human beings];

(xii) report to the Patwari the deaths of any rightholders in their estates;

(xiii) report any breach or cut in a Government irrigation canal or channel to the nearest canal officer, or canal Patwari;

(xiv) under the general or special directions of the Collector, assist by the use of his personal influence and otherwise all officers of Government and other persons, duly authorised by the Collector, in the collection and enrolment of recruits for military service whether combatant or non-combatant;

(xv) render all possible assistance to the village postman, while passing the night in the village, in safeguarding the cash and other valuables that he carried.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of provisions in Rules and the case law, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner does not call for any interference. A person such as petitioner who was involved in a case u/s 302 IPC cannot command any respect from public as, surely, the public cannot have confidence on the petitioner and rely on him.

Nature of duties as given out in Rule 20 extracted above require active association of the Lambardar with the residents of the area. The nature of duties requires that Lambardar knows the residents in the estate for carrying out his jobs. Without commanding respect and regard of the residents, the duties cannot be carried out. Surely, a person who has been tried for an offence as serious as u/s 302 IPC, cannot serve the purpose of the post held by him as he would be looked upon with suspicion. In such circumstances, I find that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, dismissing the petitioner, was not required to be reviewed, even though the petitioner has been acquitted, considering mandate of rule particularly under Rule 16(ii)(a) of the Rules.

The petition is dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which indicate better comparative merit of respondent No. 4, I find no reason to interfere in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The said authorities have set aside the order passed by the Collector in view of pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It was a relevant circumstance to be taken into account, particularly when the merit of respondent No. 4 is higher in relevant aspects.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.