1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.804/1997 Bhikha Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 16.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr Vijay Mehta, for the petitioner/s. ... By an order dated 13.1.1997 the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Sheep and Wool Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Jaipur ordered to effect recovery of Rs.79,350/- from the petitioner by holding him guilty for rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.RSB -4950 which met with an accident on 6.10.1987 resulting into death of Sh. Daula Ram. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is in employment of respondent-Federation and on 6.10.1987 the vehicle No.RSB 4950 driven by him met with an accident resulting into death of Sh.Daula Ram. Accordingly, a case was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, however, the competent court by its order dated 27.11.1993 acquitted him from the charges aforesaid with a specific finding that no evidence was available to hold the petitioner liable for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. A claim for compensation as a consequent to death of Shri Daula Ram was made by his wife and four children and that came to be decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur on 13.1.1992. Learned Tribunal declared the 2 claimants entitled for compensation in a tune of Rs.70,000/-. The compensation was required to be paid with interest. The respondent- General Manager, Rajasthan State Cooperative Sheep and Wool Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Jaipur by an order dated 16.8.1993 informed the petitioner that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur under its order dated 13.1.1992 held him guilty for rash and negligent driving, therefore, why proceedings be not initiated against him as per provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 {hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the General Manager of the respondent-Federation, copy whereof is available on record as Annexure-11. In the representation the petitioner specifically mentioned about his exoneration from the charge of rash and negligent driving by the competent court vide judgment dated 27.11.1993. The petitioner also submitted certain documents alongwith explanation to establish that he was not at all liable for rash and negligent driving that ultimately resulted into death of Sh. Daula Ram. The respondent Managing Director without holding regular inquiry held the petitioner guilty for rash and negligent driving and also for causing a loss in a tune of Rs. 79,350/- to the Federation, and thus, made an order of recovery of the amount aforesaid. 3 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery could have been ordered without making a regular inquiry. It is also stated that once the petitioner was exonerated from the charge of rash and negligent driving by a competent court, there was no occasion for the respondents to hold the petitioner guilty for rash and negligent driving and to impose a liability for compensation required to be paid to the legal representatives of late Sh. Daula Ram. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto it is apparent that the petitioner was exonerated by a competent court under its order dated 27.11.1993 from the charge of rash and negligent driving. Beside that, the General Manager of the respondent-Federation under a notice dated 16.8.1993 informed the petitioner to submit an explanation regarding his role in the accident that took place on 6.10.1984. A detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner, however, no inquiry as referred in the notice dated 16.8.1993 was initiated against the petitioner and an order of recovery was passed. 4 It is well settled that recovery from pay of an employee is a penalty prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 and no such penalty could have been imposed without holding an inquiry as per the Rules. In the instant matter from the record it is apparent that no inquiry was conducted by the respondents before making an order of recovery for a sum of Rs. 79,350/-. As such, the order impugned dated 13.1.1997 is apparently bad. The petition for writ, therefore, succeeds and same is allowed. The order dated 13.1.1997 passed by the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Sheep and Wool Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Jaipur is hereby quashed. If any recovery has been made from the petitioner in pursuant to the order dated 13.1.1997 then the amount so recovered is required to be refunded. The petitioner in this petition for writ has also prayed for grant of wages on basis of principle of equal pay for equal work, however, that is totally a separate and independent cause which can not be examined in this petition. The petitioner may avail appropriate remedy in this regard by approaching to appropriate forum. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '