CWP(T) No. 14676 of 2008 28.06.2010 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. for the respondents/State. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 28.11.2006 which reads as under:- “To The Executive Engineer, S.T. P. Division, Chakkar, Shimla-5. Subject:- In the matter of court case/2003, Shri Vijay Kumar V/S State of H.P. in the Hon’ble Court of Distt. & Session Judge, Una. Shri Jagdish Chand, Driver while driving jeep on duty with the HP-51-927 of IPH Department on 22.9.97 met with an accident near Una. A case was filed by one Shri Vijay Kumar V/S Assistant Engineer, IPH Division and Shri Jagdish Chand Driver. The Hon’ble Judge during its judgment on 6.2.2003 awarded Rs. 1,22,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition to the date of realization and the liability of the Respondent i.e. Assistant Engineer, IPH Sub –Division (the owner) and Shri Jagdish Chand Driver has been fixed, joint and several. This compensation of Rs. 1,22,000/- was deposited with the Hon’ble Court vide cheque No. 201953 dated 27.10.2003 and the interest of Rs. 60,664/- was deposited vide Cheque No. 203838 dated 14.1.2004. This total amount of Rs. 1,82,664 /- (Rs. 1,22,000 + 60,664) stand now released to the petitioner by the Hon’ble Court on 8.11.2006. Hence as per judgement this amount of Rs. 1,82,664/- is to be born on 50-50 basis by the owner of the vehicle i.e. Deptt./ and by Sh. Jagdish Chand Driver. As such Rs. 91,882/- is lying in the Misc. Advance Accounts -2- Register of office recoverable from Shri Jagdish Chand Driver who is presently working in your division. This amount be therefore recovered from him and deposited with this office so that the outstanding in Misc. Advance Account Register could be cleared. A copy of the representation dated 17.9.2006 and the copy of the judgement is however enclosed for further action at your end please. Encl:-Judgement & Representation Sd/- Executive Engineer, IPH Divison No. 1, Shimla-9.” 2. Now undisputedly before issuing the said letter no departmental proceedings had been initiated by the respondents. Also no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner was never associated, in any manner, before taking the decision in question. The recovery cannot be affected solely on the basis of the award passed by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 3. The recovery has to be affected only in accordance with the Rules framed by the employer and that too after proper adjudication in disciplinary proceedings. Hence the impugned order dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure A-1) is quashed. However, if the Rules as applicable to the petitioner permit the authorities to initiate disciplinary/recovery proceedings it shall always be open for the authorities to take action in accordance with law. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 28, 2010 (PK)