IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1608 OF 2006 (MS) Hemendra Singh ……Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director Uttaranchal Parivahan Nigam and others. ……….Respondents. Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner is a driver with Uttarakhand Parivahan Corporation, which is a State Transport Corporation in the State of Uttarakhand. He is aggrieved by order dated 9.7.2004 passed by the Regional Manager, by which a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner, and also against order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Parivahan Corporation, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 9.7.2004 was upheld. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner who is a driver in the State Transport Corporation was driving the Bus (U.A.03-1027) from Tanakpur to Kanpur and when he was about to reach Kanpur, the Bus met with an accident with Truck (H.R. 38 F-4868), near a place called ‘Naramau’. According to the FIR dated 11.10.2002, which was lodged by one of the passengers of this Bus, this incident happened at 9.30 in the night of 10th October, 2002 near Chauhan Petrol Pump, when the Truck (H.R. 38 F -4868), whose 2 driver carelessly driving his vehicle and without giving prior signal turned back his vehicle which clashed with the passenger bus, which had damaged the left side of this bus. According to the informant, he as well as his son in law received serious injuries. He has also stated that three other passengers had also received injuries. He has further stated in the FIR that after the accident the Truck Driver left the truck and ran away. This FIR was promptly lodged at 2.30 a.m. on 11.10.2002, as it is evident from the FIR, which was registered as Case Crime No. 211/02 under Sections 279, 338 read with Section 437 of the Indian Penal Code, which is marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he had also tried to lodge the FIR, but he was informed by the Police authorities that since an FIR relating to the same incident had already been lodged and registered, he need not file another FIR. This sequence of events seems plausible as the petitioner later informed the Senior Foreman of the Depot at Tanakpur on 11-10-2002, wherein he reported the entire incident. All the same, the Department instituted an inquiry in this matter and it was found that as a result of the damages to the bus due to the accident, the Department has suffered a loss of Rs. 25,000/- and the petitioner was held liable to pay this as damages to the Department. In appeal, the order of the Regional Manager was upheld. The petitioner has challenged both these orders before this Court by means of present writ petition. The primary contention of Mr. S.C. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar is that the petitioner was only performing his duty and there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had caused damage to the 3 bus by his negligence or fault. On this the petitioner relies upon the FIR lodged by one of the passengers of the bus, who has clearly stated that it was due to the fault of the truck-driver that the bus got damaged. The FIR also reveals that the truck driver consequent to the said accident got out of the vehicle and ran away. Apart from this, what is clinching in favour of the petitioner is the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was given in a claim petition filed by one of the passengers, in which it has come that there was no fault of the bus – driver (petitioner) in the said accident. The order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar has been annexed as Annexure-RA-1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit and has been perused by this Court. On these set of facts, giving punishment to the petitioner for the reasons that an accident had been caused and imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) on the petitioner does not seem to be proper, particularly in the light of the fact that there is no allegation by any one against the petitioner that he was driving the bus negligently or he was in the influence of liquour or there was any fault on his part. The contention of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation that the petitioner committed a fault by not lodging an FIR. It is an admitted case that the FIR has not been lodged by the petitioner but it is the petitioner’s case that he had went to the Police Authorities to lodge the FIR and thereafter, the report of the incident was given by him to the Senior Foreman, Tanakpur Depot. The report given to the Senior Foreman, Tanakpur Depot has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. All the same, since an FIR relating to the same incident had 4 already been lodged, the same was not lodged again as an FIR by the Police Authorities. These arguments are absolutely plausible. This Court is of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not at all justified. The order dated 9.7.2004 passed by the Regional Manager as well as the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Managing Director, Uttaranchal Parivahan Nigam, Dehradun are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reimburse the amount already deducted from the salary of the petitioner forthwith to the petitioner, in any case, within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.12.2009 Rathour