IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 14361 of 2008 Judgement reserved on: 18.4.2011. Date of decision: 19.4.2011. Chet Ram …..Petitioner. Vs. H.R.T.C. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to stop recovery of compensation amount from the petitioner which has been wrongly and illegally ordered vide Annexures P-4 and P-5 and to refund the amount to petitioner so far recovered from his salary with further prayer to quash the Annexures P-4 and P-5. 2. The facts in brief are that on 31.3.2002 the petitioner was on duty as Driver on bus bearing No. HP-10-0391 owned by HRTC. The bus met with an accident and one passenger Ghamshayam Lal Bhatia alleged to have sustained injuries in the accident, who lateron died. The heirs of deceased filed claim petition being MACT case No.215 of 20.2.2002 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide award Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… dated 23.2.2004 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% which was to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. The respondents had filed appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the award dated 23.2.2004. The petitioner had also filed cross-objections. The appeal was pending. 3. The respondent No.3 before the decision by the High Court, issued show cause notice dated 26.6.2004 to the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,59,219/- on account of 50% of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal to the heirs of deceased Ghanshyam Lal Bhatia. The petitioner submitted reply dated 14.7.2004 to the show cause notice. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 3.8.2004 Annexure P-4 imposing penalty of recovery of 50% amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner in installments of Rs.2500/- per month. 4. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2, who vide order dated 30.12.2005 Annexure P-5 has rejected the appeal and affirmed the order of respondent No.3. The petitioner had filed further appeal against the order dated 30.12.2005 and also prayed suspension of recovery from the salary of the petitioner but no order has been passed by the appellate authority. 5. It has been pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and that is why petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the heirs of the deceased. The respondents are liable to pay the entire compensation amount without fastening any liability upon the petitioner. It has been pleaded …3… that Annexures P-4 and P-5 are wrong, illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply and admitted that they had preferred the appeal against the award dated 23.2.2004 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the award in which he was held liable for compensation alongwith respondents. The award against the petitioner has become final. It has been pleaded that respondent No.3 has rightly issued the order affecting recovery of Rs. 1,59,219/- from the salary of the petitioner. The respondents have justified Annexures P-4 and P-5. The petitioner was served with memo of charge under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The show cause notice and penalty orders passed by the respondents are legal. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and reiterated his case. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondents (including petitioner) in MACT case No. 215 of 20.2.2002 have been held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- compensation jointly and severally to the claimants as per their shares alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent No.3 issued show cause notice dated 26.6.2004 to the petitioner why an amount of Rs. 1,59,219/- being the 50% amount of compensation amounting to Rs.3,18,439/- including interest be not recovered from him under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice by filing reply dated 14.7.2004. The respondent No.3 vide office order dated 3.8.2004 ordered recovery of a sum of …4… Rs.1,59,219/- from the pay of the petitioner in installments of Rs.2500/- per month. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 30.12.2005. 8. In MACT case No. 215 of 20.2.2002 the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased ? OPP 2. Whether the deceased died in Motor vehicular accident, which took place with vehicle No. HP-10-0391? OPP 3. If issues No.1 & 2 are proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom of the respondents? OPP 4. Relief. The issue No.1 was answered in affirmative. Issues No.2 and 3 were also decided in favour of the claimants. In paragraph 9 of the award dated 23.2.2004 after noticing Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Tribunal has held that in fact while lodging the claim under the provisions of law even proof of negligence has also to be done away with. There is no issue regarding the negligence of the petitioner in the award dated 23.2.2004 nor there is specific finding that petitioner was negligent while driving the bus and in any way is responsible for the injuries sustained by the deceased at the time of accident. 9. The respondents have relied Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which provides that where any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders …5… thereon as it deems fit. This is notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18. 10. It is not the case of the respondents that show cause notice for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,59,219/- from the petitioner has been issued on the basis of conviction of the petitioner on a criminal charge. The award dated 23.2.2004 of the learned Tribunal cannot be equated with the conviction in a criminal case more particularly when no specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal regarding the negligence of the petitioner at the time of the accident. It is not the case of the respondents that recovery of Rs. 1,59,219/- has been ordered after inquiry regarding the conduct of the petitioner. 11. Thus, in absence of conviction of the petitioner in criminal case and without specific finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the negligence of the petitioner in award dated 23.2.2004, the very foundation of the show cause notice dated 26.6.2004 issued to the petitioner is bad. The consequent penalty imposed by the respondent No. 3 on petitioner vide office order dated 3.8.2004 is not sustainable so also office order dated 30.12.2005 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The office order dated 30.12.2005 is otherwise cryptic and not speaking order and for this reason also is not sustainable. 12. Thus, seen from any angle, the petitioner has made out a case for quashing of office order dated 3.8.2004 Annexure P-4 and office order dated 30.12.2005 Annexure P-5 and accordingly Annexures P-4 and P-5 are set-aside and quashed. The respondents …6… shall refund the amount to the petitioner, if any, recovered from him in pursuance of Annexures P-4 and P-5 within a period of two months from the date of supply of copy of the judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority. The petition is disposed of on above terms. April 19, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.