CWP(T) No. 7039/2008 01.11.2010 Present: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents In this case petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): i. That recovery notice dated 06.11.1999 may kindly be quashed. ii. Enquiry held against the applicant may kindly be held illegal and void. iii. Record of the present case may also be called for. 2. Facts are short and undisputed. On 22.10.1994 petitioner as an employee of the respondents was driving vehicle No.HIA-1367 owned by the corporation when allegedly due to his negligence accident took place. Criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act was also filed. Tribunal held the claimants entitled to compensation of a sum of `.1,66,696/-. The liability was held to be that of petitioner (driver) and respondent-corporation. 3. In the criminal proceedings petitioner stands acquitted by the court of Addl. Chief Magistrate in terms of judgment dated 23.9.1997. There is no dispute that the same has attained finality. 4. Evidently respondent-corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer held the petitioner to have misconducted himself. Based on the inquiry report dated 22.4.1999 (Annexure A-2) penalty for recovering a sum of `.69,588/- was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 1.8.2000 (Annexure A-6). 5. Having considered the material on record, I am of the view that case for interference is made out. Respondent-corporation itself has taken a policy decision on 3.2.2009 to the effect that where employee stands acquitted in criminal proceedings no money towards payment of compensation awarded in claim petition is to be recovered from him. This policy applies retrospectively as has been held by this Court in CWP(T) No. 2882/2008 titled as Darshan Singh vs. HRTC. Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the same. 6. There is no doubt that in the present case respondent- corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings. However even from the inquiry report it is evident that the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty by relying upon the award dated 9.12.1996 passed by the Tribunal. Further witnesses relied upon by the Inquiry Officer themselves admit that they were not present at the spot at the time of accident who then could depose about the petitioner’s negligence. Inquiry Officer ought to have associated passengers or persons who were present at the spot at the time of accident. Consequently, the inquiry report stands vitiated not being based on legal evidence. Consequently, impugned order dated 1.8.2000 (Annexure A-6) is quashed. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. November 01, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.