IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.22766 of 2011 Date of decision:06.09.2013
Ram Singh …Petitioner
The State of Haryana and others …Respondents
CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. R.S.Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent no.4.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .
The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no.4 to the post of Lambardar of village Nadhori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. The District Collector appointed respondent no.4 to the post of Lambardar on 18.09.2007 but his order was set aside by the Divisional Commissioner on 10.11.2008 and the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar. Respondent no.4 challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner by way of revision which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 11.02.2008 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector.
After remand, the Collector conducted the enquiry and found that no criminal case vide FIR No.11 dated 07.01.1990, under Sections 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was registered against respondent no.4 and, thus, he was not convicted. Accordingly, the Collector, keeping in view the report dated 19.03.2009 of the City Magistrate-cum-Inquiry Officer and considering the comparative merits, appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar vide his order dated 18.06.2009. The said order was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 08.12.2009 and the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 19.05.2011. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.4 was not only involved in FIR No.11 dated 07.01.1990, under Sections 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, but was also held guilty and convicted in another case registered under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar vide his order dated 12.03.1993.After notice, replies have been filed and an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Fatehabad dated 05.09.2013 in which he has averred that respondent no.4 was involved in criminal case registered vide FIR No.11 dated 07.01.1990, under Section 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of `50/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of seven days. Since the fine was paid, the sentence was not ordered, but the fact remains that respondent no.4 has been found to be a convicted person sunder Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and could not have been appointed as Lambardar of the village.
In view thereof, the present petition is found to be meritorious and the same is hereby allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
September 06, 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)