IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.686 of 2002 Between: G.Brahmiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Secretary to Government (Projects) Irrigation & Command area (Projects Wing: TGP I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.686 of 2002 O R D E R: Petitioner questions the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.92, Irrigation & CAD (Projects Wing: TGP-I) Department dated 24.07.2001 in seeking to recover 50% of the amount from the petitioner, payable by the Government to the claimants in MVOP Nos.190/93 and 191/93. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined as Heavy Vehicle Driver on 16.03.1984 under the Superintendent Engineer, Somasilla Project. While he was on duty to go to Saidapuram to bring explosives along with Section Officer i.e. Asst.Engineer who was incharge of the vehicle on 17.06.1992 and when he was going towards extreme left and allowed the RTC bus to cross the vehicle, and then suddenly two persons traveling on Indo-Suraki vehicle came behind the RTC bus without blowing any horn and dashed against his van towards front right side and fell on the road. Immediately he stopped the vehicle and took the injured in the APSRTC bus to the hospital where they succumbed to injuries. He stated that there was no negligence on his part and he was going with low speed of 10 to 15 kms alone. Though a case in Cr.No.43/92 was registered, but no charge sheet was filed against him. It is stated that he was not made as party in the claim petition filed by the claimants in MVOP Nos.190/93 and 191/93 on the file of the II Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore claiming compensation and the said MVO.P.Nos.190/93 and 191/93 filed by the legal heirs of the deceased were allowed by order dated 01.06.2000 holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both on the part of the Van driver as well as the driver of motor cycle, and 50% liability was fixed on each of the driver of the van and driver of the motor cycle and accordingly an amount of Rs.1,12,750/- was awarded to the claimants in MVOP.No.190/93 and an amount of Rs.42,250/- was awarded to the claimants in MVOP.No.191/93 payable by the Government. It is stated that the petitioner is unaware of the pendency of the MVOPs as he was not made as party respondent to the said MVOPs. He came to know about the award of compensation only when the Government passed the impugned G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 24.07.2001 seeking recovery of 50% of amount from the petitioner payable by the Government to the claimants. This Court while admitting the writ petition, granted interim suspension as prayed for by order dated 08.01.2002 which was made absolute by order dated 31.03.2003. In the counter filed by Respondent No.4, it is stated that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, due to which the accident was occurred on 17.06.1992. I have perused the judgments in MVOP Nos.190/93 and 191/93. The said MVOPs were disposed of on 01.06.2000 holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the van, petitioner herein as well as the driver of the motor cycle, and accordingly, as the crime vehicle belongs to the Government, the Court below fixed the liability of payment of awarded amount on the Government for the fault of the driver of the van. The department has not initiated any departmental action against the petitioner. On the other hand, the Government issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 24.07.2001 fixing the liability on the driver alone for payment of 50% compensation. Admittedly, the petitioner was not party to the said MVOPs which were disposed of on 01.06.2000. Merely because the Government suffered a claim made by the claimants in the above said MVOPs, it cannot be said that the Government is automatically entitled to recover the said amount from its employees unless an independent enquiry is conducted by framing appropriate charges for initiating recovery proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the said Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 24.07.2001 seeking recovery of the amount payable to the claimants in the aforesaid MVOPs from the petitioner who is driver of the Government is unsustainable and liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 28.10.2010 Dsr