[116] Raghbir Singh The State of Punjab Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] 18.08.2022 (Annexure P Order dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure P upheld the removal of the petitioner from the post of [2] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29045 Date of Decision : Raghbir Singh versus The State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. S.S. Rangi, Senior Advocate Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition is directed against Order dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-5), Order dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P Order dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure P-3), whereby the respondents have upheld the removal of the petitioner from the post of While issuing notice of motion, this Court observed as under: “ It is submitted that there are two Lambardars in the village. The other Lambardar attested the mutation entered on the basis of transfer deed executed by Gurcharan Singh wherein too the same Kursinama has been mentioned. No action has been taken against the said Lambardar whereas the petitioner has been dismissed. Thus, the petitioner has been dealt with differently than an identically situated person. Moreover, the punishment imposed is too harsh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 29045-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.07.2026 …Petitioner ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate with Mr. Didar Singh, Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. The present writ petition is directed against Order dated 5), Order dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) and 3), whereby the respondents have upheld the removal of the petitioner from the post of Lambardar. While issuing notice of motion, this Court observed as under: It is submitted that there are two Lambardars in the village. The other Lambardar attested the mutation entered on the basis of transfer deed executed by Gurcharan Singh wherein too the same Kursinama has been mentioned. No action has been taken against e said Lambardar whereas the petitioner has been dismissed. Thus, the petitioner has been dealt with differently than an identically situated person. Moreover, the punishment imposed is The present writ petition is directed against Order dated 4) and 3), whereby the respondents have While issuing notice of motion, this Court observed as under:- It is submitted that there are two Lambardars in the village. The other Lambardar attested the mutation entered on the basis of transfer deed executed by Gurcharan Singh wherein too the same Kursinama has been mentioned. No action has been taken against e said Lambardar whereas the petitioner has been dismissed. Thus, the petitioner has been dealt with differently than an identically situated person. Moreover, the punishment imposed is RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.16 19:00 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-29045-2022 (O&M) -2- Notice of motion. Ms. Jasleen Kaur Sidhu, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service. She seeks time file written statement. Adjourned to 16.03.2023.” [3] Learned Senior Counsel is not in a position to dispute that the Kursinama attested by the present petitioner as a Lambardar was per se false and not as per the record. [4] Rule 16 & 25 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1888 read as under:- “16. (i) A headman shall be dismissed when— (a) he is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or upwards or to any heavier sentence; or (b) in an estate owned altogether or chiefly by Government he ceases to possess the interest which led to his appointment; or (c) in any other estate he ceases to be a land-owner in the estate or sub-division of the estate in respect of which he holds office; or (d) he has mortgaged his holding and has delivered possession to the mortgagee; but in special cases the Collector may, with the Commissioner's sanction, retain him in his office under such circumstances, if he can furnish adequate security for the payment of the revenue he has to collect and for the due discharge of his duties; or (e) his holding has been transferred under section 71 of the Land Revenue Act, or the assessment thereof has been annulled under section 73 of the same Act. (ii) A headman may be dismissed when— (a) criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office; or RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.16 19:00 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-29045-2022 (O&M) -3- (b) he is seriously embarrassed by debt, or if his unencumbered holding is so small as to disqualify him, in the Collector's opinion, for the responsibilities attached to the office; or (c) owing to age or physical or mental incapacity, or absence from the estate, he is unable to discharge the duties of his office; or (d) there is reason to believe that he has taken part in or concealed illicit distillation, or the smuggling of cocaine, opium or charas; or (e) he takes part in any unconstitutional agitation against the Government or fails to give his active support to the Government in the maintenance of law and order; or (f) he neglects to discharge his duties, or is otherwise shown to be incompetent; or (g) the estate or sub-division thereof, in respect of which he holds office, or his own holding, is attached either for an arrear of land revenue or by order of any Court.” 25. Punishment (i) Where a headman commits a breach of or neglects the duties imposed on him by these rules or by any other law for the time being in force, the Collector may, by order, direct— (a) that the emoluments of his office be withheld and forfeited to Government for a term not exceeding one year; or (b) that he be suspended from office for a term not exceeding one year. (ii) In a case of suspension, a substitute shall or shall not be appointed as, in the circumstances of the case, the Collector shall deem necessary. [5] Learned Senior Counsel also is not in a position to dispute that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.16 19:00 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-29045-2022 (O&M) -4- Even though, the proceedings finally culminated in the acquittal but the fact remains that the petitioner not only was negligent in performing his duties but also faced criminal prosecution. [6] Trite it is that the standard of proof in the criminal proceedings is beyond doubt. The findings recorded by the Criminal Courts cannot be said to be binding upon the authorities. [7] Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ petition. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. [8] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 06.07.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.16 19:00 I agree to specified portions of this document