Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik J.:- The petitioner challenges the order dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab, upholding the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Lambardar on account of alleged attestation of an incomplete Shajra Nasab, resulting in alleged attestation of mutation.

2. Facts first.

The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar in the year 1959. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 28.9.2006 alleging that he wrongly attested the incomplete Shajra Nasab . The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice to the effect that Shajra Nasab was prepared by the Patwari and he only attested the same. The Will was found to be a genuine document as per the order dated 21.5.2005 passed by the competent authority. However, reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the District Collector, Hoshiarpur-respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-1), thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Lambardar. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner vide Annexure P-2, but the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 11.7.2007 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner by way of revision petition, Annexure P-5 and the same was dismissed, vide order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure P-6).

3. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No. 14810 of 2009 before this Court, which was partly allowed vide order dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure P-7), remanding the matter back to the Financial Commissioner. Petitioner filed his written arguments vide Annexure P-8 specifically pointing out about the order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, to the effect that the Shajra Nasab, which was attested by the petitioner and on the basis of which, the mutation relating to the inheritance of Kehar Singh was sanctioned, has been found to be correct. No party was aggrieved in that regard, nor anybody was pursuing that litigation any further. The Will dated 1.12.2002 was also found to be a genuine document which was executed by Kehar Singh on the basis of which the mutation was sanctioned. However, without considering the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner and also the direction issued by this Court, the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 6.7.2012, again dismissed the revision of the petitioner, thereby upholding his removal order. Hence this writ petition.

4. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Financial Commissioner was duty bound to comply with the directions issued by this Court, which have neither been discussed nor discarded but simply ignored by the Financial Commissioner, while passing the impugned order. He further submits that once the matter, pertaining to the mutation, has attained finality between the parties and the Will has been found to be genuine, on the basis of which the mutation was sanctioned, the impugned orders removing the petitioner from the post of Lambardar were not sustainable in law. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition with exemplary costs as the Financial Commissioner has glaringly violated the categoric directions issued by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while trying to justify the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, submits that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. However, during the course of arguments, when a specific query was put as to why the clear directions issued by this Court were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 6.7.2012, learned counsel had no answer and rightly so, because the Financial Commissioner has altogether ignored the directions issued by th