MOHINDER SINGH Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HAYANA AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2016-12-9
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 15,2016

MOHINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
The Financial Commissioner, Hayana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. - (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.2016 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby revision of the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 10.12.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, was upheld, thereby setting aside the order dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Collector, Rewari. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Facts are hardly in dispute. One post of the Lambardar fell vacant in the village of parties, because of the death of earlier Lambardar namely Sh. Ami Lal. Process for filing up this post was initiated. Petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were contesting for appointment to the post of Lambardar. District Collector, Rewari, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure P-3). Feeling aggrieved against the said order, respondent No.4 challenged it before the Commissioner, who accepted the appeal of respondent No.4, setting aside the order passed by the District Collector and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar in place of the petitioner. Revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 16.3.2016 (Annexure P-10). Hence this writ petition.
(3.) The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, trying to explain the conduct of petitioner qua the allegation of theft of electricity, was that the amount of Rs.38,714/- was deposited by the petitioner as penalty on account of theft of electricity but the said electricity connection was issued at the house of his brother. Since brother of the petitioner was serving in the Army, petitioner had deposited that amount. However, this solitary contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner does not find support from any material on record. The contention seems to be based on an afterthought, which has not been substantiated.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.