CWP(T) No. 2882 of 2008(OA(D) 345/1995) 15.12.2009 Present:- Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing order dated 18.8.1993 Annexure A-6 and order dated 3.1.1995 Annexure A-8 passed by the Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Pathankot. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the amount which has already been recovered / deducted by the respondents from the salary of the petitioner. The further relevant facts are that MAC Petition No. 19/1987 was allowed on 30.4.1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharamshala and an award of Rs. 77,000/- was passed against the respondent No.1. The petitioner was respondent No.2 in MAC Petition No. 19/1987. In view of award dated 30.4.1988, the petitioner was chargesheeted under Rule 16 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 vide Annexure A-2 dated 2.2.1993 for causing loss to respondent No.1 worth Rs. 77,000/-. The Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. Pathankot vide office order dated 18.8.1993 Annexure A-6 imposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 20,640/- against the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.A.(D) 931/1994 before the erstwhile Tribunal against the penalty which was decided by the Tribunal on 21.12.1994 and the O.A. filed by - 2 - the petitioner was directed to be treated as representation to the General Manager, H.R.T.C. The petitioner vide communication dated 3.1.1995 Annexure A-8 was informed that his representation has been rejected. Thereafter, petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing order dated 18.8.1993 Annexure A-6 and order dated 3.1.1995 Annexure A-8 and refund of amount already recovered from him. The controversy now is limited in view of affidavit dated 8.12.2009, therefore, it is not necessary to give in detail defence of respondents. There is no dispute between the parties that an amount of Rs. 12,075/- was recovered from the petitioner in view of penalty imposed vide Annexure A-6. The balance amount which was to be recovered from the petitioner comes to Rs. 8,565/-. The Corporation has taken a decision dated 3.2.2009 to the effect that where recovery orders have been issued by the Regional Manager / Head of offices and concerned driver had filed OAs and stay has been granted against the said recovery. But lateron such drivers have been acquitted in criminal cases, in such cases the recovery order be withdrawn subject to withdrawal of OAs by the official/driver concerned. - 3 The Regional Manager (Legal), H.R.T.C. has filed affidavit dated 8.12.2009 in which he has stated that on 1.11.1980 accident was caused between the H.R.T.C. bus No. HPK-5645 and cycle, but no FIR was lodged against Darshan Singh, who was driving the said bus on that date. This indicates that the petitioner was not found negligent even by the police, therefore, no FIR was lodged against the petitioner. In the affidavit dated 8.12.2009, it has also been stated that the instructions are required to be implemented prospectively, the recovery of balance amount i.e. Rs. 8,565/- shall not be effected as per the said instructions. It is thus clear from the affidavit dated 8.12.2009 that even the respondent No.1. has accepted that the instructions are applicable in the case of the petitioner but respondent No.1 has taken the stand that such instructions are applicable prospectively. In case the amount of Rs.12,075/- would not have been recovered from the petitioner then such amount on the date of instructions was also due from the petitioner. In the affidavit, it has been clearly stated that an amount of Rs. 8,565/- is now not recoverable from the petitioner. There is no sound legal explanation in the affidavit why and under what circumstances an amount of Rs. 12,075/- is recoverable from - 4 - the petitioner when amount of Rs. 8,565/- is not recoverable. In view of the instructions dated 3.2.2009, the respondent No.1 is not entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 12,075/- from the petitioner. It has come on record that an amount of Rs. 12,075/- has already been recovered by the respondents from the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No.1- Corporation is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,075/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from today, failing which respondent No.1 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of Rs. 12,075/- from the date the amount of Rs. 12,075/- was recovered from the petitioner till payment. The petition is disposed of on the above terms. December 15, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.