Balwinder Singh vs Financial Commissioner ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12718 P&H

LPA-869-2022 (O&M)                                                     1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
108

                                                     CM-2089-LPA-2022 &
                                                     CM-2088-LPA-2022 &
                                                     CM-2090-LPA-2022 &
                                                     LPA-869-2022

                                       Date of Decision: September 30, 2022


BALWINDER SINGH

                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                                    Versus


FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PUNJAB AND ORS.


                                                            ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:     Mr. Suresh Singla, Advocate,
             for the appellant.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

CM-2089-LPA-2022

Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 36 days

in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is

supported by the affidavit of the applicant-appellant, the same is allowed.

Delay of 36 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

LPA-869-2022

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2022, vide which the order passed by the

Commissioner, which has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner

1 of 3

setting aside the appointment of the appellant as a Lambardar on the ground

that there was a criminal case registered against him, although he has been

acquitted but the effect thereof has not been taken note of by the Collector

while considering his appointment to the post of Lambardar, was upheld.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the

judgments, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge

as well as the Financial Commissioner, would not be applicable to the facts

of the case as those were cases where the acquittal has taken place much

after passing of appointment orders or during the pendency of appointment

cases. In the present case, the appellant has been acquitted much prior to the

date of his appointment as Lambardar. So, those aspects cannot be taken

against him.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that merely because there has

been an acquittal in the criminal matter, it does not give a clean chit to the

appellant.

It is, however, clarified that the observations of the

Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner as also the learned

Single Judge shall not be taken against the appellant in any manner. It is

further made clear that merely because there was a criminal case registered

against the appellant in itself cannot be a ground for not considering the

case of the appellant especially when he has been acquitted prior to the date

of appointment. What is required to be taken note of by the Collector is the

effect of such a case having been registered and the resultant acquittal

thereof.

With these clarifications, the present appeal stands disposed of.

2 of 3

CM-2088-LPA-2022 & CM-2090-LPA-2022

In view of the disposal of the main appeal, these applications

have been rendered infructuous and the same are disposed of as such.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE September 30, 2022 pj

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3