IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 5310 of 2008. Date of decision: January 5, 2010. Lekh Raj Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has prayed for quashing of office order dated 19.1.1998 Annexure P-1 vide which the petitioner was held guilty in the departmental proceedings initiated against him under Rule 16 of C.C.S.(CCA) Rules 1965 and an amount of Rs.28,367/- was ordered to be recovered from him by way of penalty. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that one Atma Ram had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident involving bus No. HP-18-3507, which was allegedly being driven by the petitioner on 6.7.1993. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.85,100/- to the claimant alongwith 12% interest. The award amount was deposited by the Corporation. The Corporation held an inquiry under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and disciplinary authority had Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… imposed penalty of Rs.28367/-, which was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner alongwith 12% interest. The order of punishment has been challenged by the petitioner in the petition. 3. The petition has been contested by the Corporation by filing reply and it has been submitted that since the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had found the petitioner negligent in driving the vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.85,100/- to the claimant alongwith interest, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority in the inquiry. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that 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the said recovery, but later on such drivers have been acquitted in criminal cases, in such cases the recovery order be withdrawn subject to withdrawal of OAs by the official/ driver concerned. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that petitioner was also acquitted by the criminal court. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, contended that decision dated 3.2.2009 of the corporation is prospective and, therefore, petitioner cannot take benefit of decision dated 3.2.2009. 5. This question was considered by this court in CWP(T) No. 2882 of 2008 titled Darshan Singh vs. HRTC. On 3.2.2009, according to corporation the amount of Rs.28367/- alongwith interest …3… is recoverable from the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of decision dated 3.2.2009. The present case is covered by the judgement rendered in Darshan Singh (supra). The corporation is not entitled to recover Rs.28367/- alongwith interest from the petitioner in view of decision dated 3.2.2009 of the Corporation, therefore, office order dated 19.1.1998 Annexure P-1 is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. January 5, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.