HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13617 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2011 **** Baljit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. SK Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner who is a Driver in the Punjab Roadways seeks quashing of the orders dated 05.03.2008 & 17.02.2009 (Annexure P5 & P7, respectively) whereby penalty of stoppage of six annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed and his appeal against the said orders has also been declined. The above-stated action has been taken against the petitioner for causing a fatal accident on 15.04.2001 while driving Bus No.PB-12C-9317 in which a young boy aged about 17-18 years lost his life. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 09.03.2004 (Annexure P9) found the petitioner guilty of rash and negligent driving and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,96,100/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. to the parents of the deceased. The above-stated CWP No.13617 of 2009.doc - 2 - incident led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner culminating into the impugned orders. (2). The aggrieved petitioner has raised two-fold contentions. Firstly, it is urged that since the petitioner has been acquitted under Section 279/337/304A IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, he cannot be held guilty of rash and negligent driving. Secondly, the official respondents themselves took a plea before the Tribunal that the accident was not caused due to fault on the part of the petitioner- Driver. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of this Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.,, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 488. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In my considered view both the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot sustain in law and are liable to be rejected. It is well settled that the parameters to be applied by a Criminal Court to hold a suspect guilty of an offence with the charges having been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, are different than those to be applied by a Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the petitioner appears to have been acquitted in a criminal case as one of the witnesses turned hostile, nevertheless, the Tribunal, has returned a categoric finding of rash and negligent driving against him. The enquiry officer or the 2 CWP No.13617 of 2009.doc - 3 - disciplinary authority, in the domestic enquiry, were bound by the said finding of fact. The action taken against the petitioner is thus fully justified in law. Similarly, the fact that the State Authorities had taken a stand that the petitioner did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the reason that the said defence plea of the respondents was never accepted by the Tribunal. So long as the finding of rash and negligent driving at the hands of the petitioners returned by the Tribunal sustains, the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority deserves to be upheld. As regards the view taken by the Single Judge in Sarwan Singh’s case (supra), firstly the said decision is distinguishable on facts as in that case the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to mechanical failure of the engine and not on account of rash and negligent driving. Secondly the Division Bench in Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2009(3) SCT 246 has categorically held that wherever the Tribunal has found the driver guilty of rash and negligent driving, the consequences must fall upon the delinquent driver. (4). For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (5). Dasti . 3 CWP No.13617 of 2009.doc - 4 - 15.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4