R.N.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 against the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, in respect of appointment of lambardar of village Thinda, Tehsil Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on removal of Avtar Singh from the post of lambardar by Deputy Commissioner Hoshiarpur, process aas initiated to fill up the post of lambardar. Naib Tehsidar Mahilpur got the requisite proclamation made in the village Thinda for inviting applications from eligible persons. In response, the present petitioner and the respondent applied for the said post. After completing formalities, Naib Tehsildar Mahilpur, the Tehsildar and SDM Garhshankar recommended the name of Mohinder Singh and forwarded the case to Collector Hoshiarpur who appointed Santokh Singh as lambardar vide his order dated 19.04.2005. Aggrieved by this order, Mohinder Singh filed an appeal before Commissioner Jalandhar Division stating that the Collector's order is sketchy and non-speaking in as much as no reason whatsoever was mentioned for appointing Santokh Singh as lambardar and in the process ignoring the better qualifications of Mohinder Singh. The Commissioner Jalandhar Division accepted the appeal on the ground that the appellant Mohinder Singh was never removed from service but in fact he retired on 3.8.2001 ands is drawing regular pension. Against this order of the Commissioner, the petitioner preferred this revision petition before this Court standing that the Commissioner had without any reason ignored the alleged embezzlement of public money by Mohinder Singh who could, therefore, not be appointed as the village lambardar as this offence had been legally taken cognizance of. Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Naresh Kaushik argued that his candidate Santokh Singh was appointed by Distt. Collector Hoshiarpur after considering the merits of both the candidates. The Distt. Collector had ignored the candidature of Mohinder Singh respondent on the ground that he guilty of embezzlement of Rs. 1,07,141-00 of the Directorate of Horticulture and ordered to be removed from service. In appeal, he was retired from service vide order dated 10.6.2002 of Agriculture Department. Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner appointed him as lambardar. Counsel further concluded that his candidature was approved by the Distt. Collector on merits and his appointment should not be interfered with.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent Sh. G.S. Nagra submitted in his written arguments that his candidate Mohinder Singh was recommended by Naib Tehsildar Mahilpur, the Tehsildar and SDM Garhshankar but the Distt. Collector ignored him only on the ground that he had alegedly embezzled Departmental funds whereas his candidate was exonerated of this charge which therefore becomes non-est in law. Infact Mohinder Singh retired as Asst. Director Horticulture on promotion from the Punjab Government was drawing pension. He further made the submission that his candidate is more educated, having more land and is financially sound. In appeal, the Commissioner appointed Mohinder Singh as lambardar by setting aside the order of the Distt. Collector. On the other hand Santokh Singh present petitioner is reportedly of a quarrelsome nature and involved in a criminal case FIR No. 22 dated 28.3.1997 under Sections 308, 232 and 34 IPC. Although he was discharged by the Addl. Session Judge Hoshiarpur he is reputed to be a man of dubious character. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.;