IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6448 of 2008(OA No.458/1999) Decided on : 1.10.2010. Asha Ram …Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and another ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. B.B.Vaid, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The main prayer in the petition is as follows:- (i) That the impugned order of the respondents which is Annexure A-III, be set-aside/quashed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide office order dated 31.7.1999 Annexure A-III recovery of ` 76,800/- in 36 equal instalments has been ordered against the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that recovery amount of ` 76,800/- has been ordered against the petitioner in pursuant to award dated 27.2.1999 passed by the learned MACT(II), Mandi in Claim Petition No. 53 of 1993. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 28.8.1993 he was driving HRTC bus No. HP-39-0265, a scooter came from opposite side 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 and hit the bus and its pillion rider Tilak Raj sustained some injuries. The scooter was being driven by Abhay Kumar son of injured. An FIR was registered against the scooterist and the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in Criminal Case No. 73-II of 1995(94) acquitted the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC. 4. Tilak Raj filed claim petition No. 53 of 1993 against HRTC and others, the petitioner was also impleaded in the said petition. The learned MACT (II), Mandi allowed the petition on 27.2.1999 and passed an award of ` 2,80,000/- against HRTC, its Regional Manager and petitioner along with 12% interest on the amount of compensation. It was ordered that interest would not be payable for the period 21.4.1995 to 28.5.1997. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay compensation more particularly when he was not found negligent in the criminal case. There is relationship of master and servant between HRTC and the petitioner. At the relevant time, the petitioner was acting in the course of his employment and therefore, respondent No.1 is fully liable for the act of petitioner. 6. It has been submitted that respondent No.1 on 3.2.2009 has taken a decision 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 lateron 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. It has been submitted that in view of decision dated 3.2.2009 the amount of ` 76,800/- or any other amount in pursuance of award dated 27.2.1999 is not recoverable from the petitioner. 3 7. The respondent No.1 has contested the petition and has taken the plea that petitioner has no right to challenge the recovery order dated 31.7.1999 on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court. It has been submitted that as per the award the Corporation, Regional Manager and the petitioner were held liable to pay ` 1,40,000/- besides interest, therefore, keeping in view the principle of public accountability and in order to ensure discipline and efficiency in service, the respondent Corporation issued a charge sheet under Rule 16 against the applicant on 9.6.1999 and after giving an opportunity to petitioner to submit his reply, office order dated 31.7.1999 was issued. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has supported the office order dated 31.7.1999. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has not disputed the issuance of office order dated 3.2.2009 but he has submitted that office order dated 3.2.2009 is prospective in nature and is not applicable to the case of the petitioner where the accident had taken place on 28.8.1993 and the award was passed on 27.2.1999 and the office order for recovery of ` 76,800/- was passed on 31.7.1999. In CWP(T) No. 2882 of 2008 (OA No. 345 of 1995) titled Darshan Singh Walia Vs. HRTC and others decided on 15.12.2009 this Court has given the benefit of decision dated 3.2.2009 where penalty of recovery of amount was imposed on 18.8.1993 and the award of MACT was dated 30.4.1988. In the present case the award of the Tribunal is dated 27.2.1999 and the impugned order of recovery is dated 31.7.1999. The present case is fully covered by the decision in Darshan Singh Walia (supra). 9. No other point was urged. 4 10. The result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed Annexure A-III dated 31.7.1999 is quashed, the respondent No.1 is directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner in pursuance of office order dated 31.7.1999 Annexure A-III within two months from the date a copy of this judgment is submitted by petitioner to respondent No.1, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to 9% interest on such amount till the date of actual refund of the amount. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any, on the above terms. ( Kuldip Singh ), October 1, 2010 Judge. (GR)