IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 3723 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 4th March, 2010. Gurdev Singh Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Dhiman, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner was a Driver in the Punjab Roadways. He has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. It is not in dispute that while in service, he caused a motor vehicular accident which burdened the State with the compensation liability of Rs.6,99,125/-. The Competent Authority has now taken a conscious decision to recover Rs.1,00,000/- out of the said compensation amount. This order has been passed after a departmental enquiry held against the petitioner. The petitioner has two fold contentions. Firstly, he urges that since the Department has constituted a separate fund to pay compensation to the victims of the road accidents, no recovery can be effected from the delinquent driver like him. In my considered view, there is no legal or factual basis to support the contention. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.Corpn v N.Ramulu and another [1997] 11 SCC, 319, a Division Bench of this Court has turned down some-what similar issue raised in Civil Writ Petition No. 12289 of 2007 decided on 27.2.2009 [Sampuran Singh v The State of Punjab & Another]. The petitioner then urged that since the impugned recovery order has been passed on the basis of some policy decision taken by a Committee constituted by the State Government in which the Secretary, Transport Department also participated, the petitioner is left with no remedy to file statutory appeal before the same authority. The said contention also appears to be wholly misconceived. The impugned recovery order has been passed by the Director, State Transport Authority, Punjab. The Committee's decision, referred to above, was taken on 23.6.2008. It is not necessary that the same officer is now holding the post of Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Transport Department. In any case, there are officers in the rank of Additional Secretary/Special Secretary who too are competent to decide the departmental appeals. Nothing, thus, precludes the petitioner from instituting the statutory appeal provided the same is maintainable at this stage. Dismissed with liberty aforementioned. Dasti. March 04, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE