RSA No. 1547 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 1547 of 2008 Date of decision: December 9,2008 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & others ..Appellant. Versus Shiv Charan and others ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction has been decreed and the impugned punishment order No.154 dated 5.3.2001, office order No.657 dated 4.10.2001, office order No.756 dated 29.4.2002 and order No.250 dated 29.4.2002 have been declared null and void and the defendant-appellants have been further directed to refund the amount of plaintiffs deducted from the salaries of the plaintiffs with interest @ 6 % per annum. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are the employees of the defendants and were working in the capacity of Lineman under the administrative control of Superintending Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short “DHBVN Ltd.”), Faridabad Circle, Faridabad. Shiv Charan and Jagan Nath, two of the plaintiffs were deployed on maintenance duty and Girraj and Dheeraj, the remaining two plaintiffs were deployed at the Complaint Centre under Shri Nand Lal, the then Junior Engineer at Bamni Khera during the month of October, 1996. On 22.10.1996, Shri Om Parkash ALM was deputed to attend to the complaint duty with Shri Ramji Lal, Lineman at Complaint Centre, Bamni Khera from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. The complaint Centre RSA No. 1547 of 2008 2 Bamni Khera received a complaint that fuse of 100 KVA transformer installed near the School was blown off and electric supply to the consumers was disrupted at about 8.15 P.M. on 22.10.1996. Shri Ramji Lal Lineman and Shri Om Parkash ALM on receipt of complaint reached the site. Shri Ramji Lal Lineman cut off the G.O. Switch of the transformer H Pole and climbed on the H Pole of the transformer whereas Shri Om Parkash ALM remained down platform of the transformer to assist Shri Ramji Lal Lineman. Shri Ramji Lal Lineman while replacing the fuse wire of the transformer came in contact with the live female of the transformer (H) and fell down on the ground and sustained head injuries. Om Parkash ALM with the help of villagers and the Junior Engineer shifted the injured Ramji Lal to Civil Hospital at Palwal where the doctors declared Ramji Lal dead on 22.10.1996. The legal heirs of deceased Ramji Lal Lineman were awarded compensation under the Workman Compensation Act. The Chief Engineer (Op) Zone DHBVN Ltd., defendant No.2 in a letter to Superintending Engineer( Op) Circle, DHBVN Ltd. Defendant No.3 held eight employees of the Nigam responsible for the accident and decided to recover the amount of compensation sanctioned in favour of legal heirs of Ramji Lal vide letter No.CH.28/AC/FF dated 276.5.1999. The Superintending Engineer (Op) Circle defendant No.3 directed Xen (Op) of Division Palwal to recover the amount from the eight named officials after completing usual formalities vide letter No.CH 28 dated 17.6.1999. The plaintiffs were issued with a notice to show cause why the proposed recovery be not effected. The plaintiffs replied to the show cause notice praying discharge of notice as there was no lapse on their part in discharge of duty or fatal accident of Ramji Lal, Lineman on 22.10.1996. The replies of plaintiff were considered but were not found satisfactory and were rejected. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration that the impugned order to enforce recovery of amount was illegal, null and void not binding on the rights of the plaintiff with consequential relief of injunction. RSA No. 1547 of 2008 3 Respondents contested the suit and filed joint written statement. It was averred that plaintiffs were deployed for the maintenance and upkeep of the electric line emanated from 66 KV Sub Station Palwal up to Aurangabad by the Junior Engineer In-charge Deegot Sub Office so that there may not be any inconvenience to the public. The plaintiffs failed to properly maintain the lines. Shri Ramji Lal LM along with Shri Om Parkash ALM went to attend the complaint of village Bamni Khera on 22.10.1996. The H.T. fuse of 100 KVA transformer was blown off. Shri Ramji Lal Lineman climbed up the transformer to set right the H.T. fuses and Shri Om Parkash ALM was safeguarding the G.O. Switch prior to start of the work. One of the blades of the G.O. switch was unfortunately not operating properly and it remained in live position due to which the female contact of the transformer remained energized. Shri Ramji Lal started the work to set right the fuses of the transformer, touched with the energized live female contact and fell down on the earth which resulted into fatal accident. The deceased was in the evening shift to attend to the complaint occurring during the period from 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. The plaintiffs were in the morning shift commencing from 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. for the maintenance and upkeep of the electric line and to attend to the complaint occurring during the period. It was incumbent on their part to tell Shri Ramji Lal Lineman and Shri Om Parkash ALM whether the GO switch was working properly or not before leaving their duty on 22.10.1996 at 3.00 p.m. which they did not disclose. The plaintiffs were fully responsible for the occurrence of fatal accident of Shri Ramji Lal. The plaintiffs were served with show cause notice by the competent authority. The plaintiffs submitted reply in response to the show cause notice were considered and not found satisfactory. The appeal of the plaintiffs was rejected by the Chief Engineer Operation) DHBVNL Gurgaon, vide office order No. 27 dated 27.8.2002. The competent authority SE “OP” Circle, Faridabad decided to recover the amount of compensation of Rs. 1, 35,560/- paid to the family of deceased in equal share/ratio from each plaintiffs The recovery of the amount was started from RSA No. 1547 of 2008 4 their pay @ Rs. 800/- per month onwards. It was asserted that order to recover the amount was legal and valid. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs lack locus standi and has no cause of action to maintain the suit and prayed that false, frivolous and vexatious suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs. Both the parties adduced evidence, oral and documentary in support of their respective claims. Learned trial Court heard counsel for the parties, evaluated evidence and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2005. Appeal filed by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.11.2006. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court held as under:- “The question that falls for determination is whether the order to recover the amount from Shiv Charan and others is legal and valid. It is evident from the report of Xen (Op) Division Palwal, SDO S/U, Sub Division Palwal J.E. In charge, S/O Deeghot and statement of Nand Lal, JE that Ramji Lal climbed H Pole to replace blown HT fuse and might have touched the live female contact of GO switch, fell down sustained head injuries resulting in death and none of the employees of the Board was responsible for fatal accident of Ramji Lal occurred at village Bamni Khera under the jurisdiction of Deeghot Sub Office under Sub Division, Palwal on 22.10.1996 vide reports (Ex.P1, P1/1 to Ex.P1/8). The investigation conducted into electrical accident showed that the hand of Ramji Lal touched alive female part of GO switch, got electric shock, fell down on the ground also got head injury, was taken to Civil Hospital, Palwal and was declared dead. The accident could be averted had Ramji Lal worked more carefully as it was dark at night. There was infringement of Electricity Rules, 1956 and Ramji Lal Lineman was RSA No. 1547 of 2008 5 responsible for the accident and death vide report of Chief Electrical Inspector (Ex.P1/9). The various reports and the investigation into the electrical accident no where speaks of poor maintenance of the line at Sub Station or negligence on the part of any of the eight persons from whom the amount of compensation paid to the legal heirs of Ramji Lal is sought to be recovered. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the courts below had failed to appreciate that before passing the impugned orders of recovery from the plaintiff-respondents, they were served with a show cause notice. Their replies were considered and found unsatisfactory and were rejected. Thus, the impugned orders were passed in accordance with law. Therefore, the courts below erred while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondents. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff-respondents were deployed for maintenance and upkeep of the electric line and they ought to have maintained the line properly to avoid any sort of inconvenience to the public but they failed to maintain the line properly and it was incumbent upon them to tell Ramji Lal Lineman and Om Parkash ALM before they left their duty on22.10.1996 that the GO Switch was not working properly and this fact they did not disclose to them so they were negligent on their duty and were fully responsible for the occurrence and thus the impugned orders passed were legal and in accordance with law. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. However, I find no force in the contentions raised by him. Undisputedly, the Chief Engineer (Op) Zone, DHBVN in a letter to the Superintending Engineer (Op) Circle, DHBVN held eight members of the staff responsible for the accident and it was decided to recover the amount of compensation in equal share sanctioned to the fatal accident of Ramji Lal in favour of his legal heirs vide letter dated 26.5.1999 and RSA No. 1547 of 2008 6 the defendants directed Xen Op. Division Palwal to recover the amount from the eight named officials. Admittedly, before fixing the liability of the respondents, no inquiry was held by the Chief Engineer, Op. Zone, DHBVN or any other competent authority to find out whether the plaintiff-respondents were negligent in their duty or not. It was only after the Chief Engineer, Op. Zone, DHBVN decided to recover the amount of compensation from the plaintiff-respondents that show cause notices were given to the respondent for recovery of the amount. It is not the case of the appellants that the plaintiff-respondents were given show cause notices before fixing their responsibility. The various reports and investigation into alleged electric accident, no where speaks poor maintenance of the line at Sub Station or negligence on the part of any of the plaintiff-respondents from whom the amount of compensation paid to the legal representatives of Ramji Lal sought to be recovered. Even the impugned order to recover the compensation in equal share from the plaintiffs and others do not spell out the basis to fasten the plaintiffs’ financial liability. Thus, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decrees of the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. December 9, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE