Lambardar – Appointment of – Petitioner was acquitted in criminal case by giving benefit of doubt and thus it was not a clear acquittal – Not entitled for appointment.

Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.-Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner, orders dated 27.11.2013 and 06.10.2016 (Annexures P-2 and P-5 respectively) passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, order dated 28.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Pathankot, whereby order dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Gurdaspur, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of Village Jhajeli, Tehsil and District Pathankot, was set-aside.

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after due consideration of the names of the petitioner as well as Swaran Singh (respondent No.4 herein), who was also a candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar of Village Jhajeli, District Collector, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village, which order was challenged by Swaran Singh, respondent No.4 by way of an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who allowed the same vide order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P-2) by setting-aside the order dated 20.10.2010 and remanded the case to the District Collector, Gurdaspur, for fresh decision. It is thereafter that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 28.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) concluded that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 were fit for appointment to the post of Lambardar and ordered fresh proclamation, which was initially conducted in the year 2008, to be conducted now in the year 2014 as six years had passed. Against this order, both the candidates i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.4 filed appeals before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, and the same were dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P-5), upholding the order passed by the District Collector, Pathankot. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure P-6), upholding the orders passed by the District Collector and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

3. Counsel for the petitioner, after giving the abovesaid details, asserts that a well reasoned and justified order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the District collector, Gurdaspur, whereby the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar of Village Jhajeli, wherein the comparative merit of both the candidates was considered, has been wrongly set-aside by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P-2) on an erroneous assumption that the petitioner was involved in criminal case and, therefore, was not fit for appointment to the post of Lambardar whereas the fact remains that he stands acquitted after the trial in criminal case and, therefore, it cannot be a valid ground for not considering him fit for appointment to the post of Lambardar. His assertion, especially in the light of the fact that respondent No.4, Swaran Singh, has been found to be a person who was debtor of Punjab Water Resources Management & Development Corporation Limited, Pathankot, to the tune of Rs.6,725/-, is that upholding of the said order by the Appellate Authority as well as the revisional authority cannot be said to be justified in the light of the judgments passed by this Court in Harjinder Singh Vs . State of Punjab and others, [2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3710 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2348] : 2017 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 659, Harbhagwan Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012 (67) R.C.R. (Civil) 658 and Kashmiri Lal Vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Chandigarh and others, [2013(1) Law Herald (P&H) 362 : 2013(1) Land L.R. 229 (P&H)] : 2012 (57) R.C.R. (Civil) 208. He states that as per the above referred judgments on acquittal of an accused, who is involved in a criminal case, the stigma would not pers