CIVIL APPEAL 7572 of 2008 on 10 December 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP(T) No. 7572 of 2008.

Decided on 30.11.2010.

____________________________________________________

Krishan Kumar.

…Petitioner.

-Versus-

State of Himachal Pradesh and another.

…Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1]No.

__________________________________________________________

For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):

Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis in the respondent-department on 08.06.1995. He was regularized on 08.09.1995. The truck driven by him met with an accident on 10.12.1994 at 1:30 p.m. in Chandigarh. Three claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal announced the award on 17.07.1999. Claimants were awarded compensation amounting to `1,48,019/- including interest upto 31.10.2000. The appeals preferred by the respondent-department were dismissed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 14.07.2000. Thereafter, a memorandum was served upon the petitioner on 9.11.2000. The Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion to impose the penalty of `1,48,019/- upon the petitioner. He was given an 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.

opportunity to make a representation within a period of 15 days. He made a representation. However, vide office order dated 18.12.2000, the Disciplinary Authority under Rule-19 read with Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 imposed the minor penalty of recovery of the whole of compensation awarded to three victims together with interest thereon @ 12%. However, the department took-up the matter with the State Government and the State Government vide decision dated 19.01.2001 opined that the compensation awarded be shared 50:50 between the Driver concerned and the State Government. In other words, the petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of `74,009/- .

2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the respondent-department has wrongly invoked Rule 19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 while initiating the process for ordering recovery from the petitioner. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was fond guilty of rash and negligent driving, the order dated 18.12.2000 is in accordance with law.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading carefully. 5. A bare perusal of Rule-19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 makes it abundantly clear that it applies only in a case: i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules.

6. In the instant case, no F.I.R. was registered after the accident which took place on 10.12.1994. Petitioner has neither been convicted nor sentenced by any Criminal Court. He has been found negligent by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In fact, the respondent-State has pleaded before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the accident has not been caused due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. The respondents have not placed any tangible material on record to establish that it was not practicable to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. Consequently, the initiation of the process by the respondent-State by issuing letter dated 09.11.2000, which culminated in penalty dated 18.12.2000 is contrary to law. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-5 and A-6, dated 9.11.2000 and 18.12.2000 and letter dated 15.09.2001 (Annexure R/1) are quashed and set aside. No costs.

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge

`