- (1.) The petitioner and the respondents are in a ding-dong battle for appointment of a Lambardar since the year 2000. The process for the appointment of Lambardar of Village Bas Padamka, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon, was initiated, when Assistant Collector recommended the names of the petitioner and respondent No.5 for the post of Lambardar. The Collector appointed respondent No.5 on 6.11.2001 in preference to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was ignored as there was an FIR registered against him.
(2.) The petitioner appealed against this order but the Commissioner dismissed the same on 5.9.2002. The Financial Commissioner also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner but at the same time, directed the Collector to get an enquiry made against respondent No.5 in regard to the allegation that he was in illegal possession of Panchayat land and for the allegation of having cut some trees.
(3.) The Collector accordingly detailed S.D.O. (Civil), Gurgaon, to submit his report. The S.D.O. (Civil) submitted his report on 29.4.2005 and found that respondent No.5 was not in any illegal possession of Panchayat land. The allegation of cutting the trees was also not proved against him. Still, the complainant produced a photo copy of the receipt showing recovery of '8469/- made from respondent No.5 on account of some electricity theft. Show cause notice was issued to respondent No.5 for the same, which he disputed and pointed out that no FIR had been lodged for electricity theft and he had just deposited the payment on the basis of average bill issued to him due to over load. Thus, he pleaded that deposit of this payment, would not show a commission of any offence under any provisions of law. Taking this report into consideration, the Collector found that no case for rejecting the claim of respondent No.5 for the post of Lambardar was made out as the allegations made against him, for which the case was remanded, could not be proved.;