C.W.P.No.18125 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18125 of 2006 Date of Decision : 24.03.2008 Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 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? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 1.11.2006, Annexure P-7, whereby a sum of Rs.1500/- per month was sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner till the amount of compensation paid to the claimant of the deceased Smt.Shanti Devi, is recouped. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is working as driver with the Municipal Corporation, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). On 9.10.2003, while the petitioner was unloading the waste material from the skip/container attached with the Swaraj Mazda, few ladies rushed towards the container in order to get waste material. All the said gathered women started quarreling with each other and C.W.P.No.18125 of 2006 2 in the scuffle, one lady struck against the wheel of stationary Swaraj Mazda. The said lady died. The husband and sons of the deceased lady filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- as compensation alongwith costs and 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, vide Award dated 6.1.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that a show cause notice dated 2.6.2006 was served upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the half of the amount i.e., Rs.1,69,352/- be not recovered from the salary of the petitioner. On 20.6.2006, the petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice. But without conducting any enquiry and without communicating any order to the petitioner, recovery was sought to be made from the salary of the petitioner vide order dated 1.11.2006, Annexure P-7, which is impugned in the present writ petition. In reply, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was jointly and severally held to be liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,88,000/- with interest and costs as specified in the Award dated 6.1.2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the employee has to make the loss good. It has been further stated that since the finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal, therefore, no further enquiry is required. Still the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the competent Authority for recovery of the amount which is justified. On 17.3.2008, learned counsel for the respondents has sought time to produce the order of punishment passed in pursuance of the show C.W.P.No.18125 of 2006 3 cause notice, Annexure P-2. Today, learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the order dated 20.3.2008 whereby a speaking order for the recovery of Rs.1,69,352/- , @ Rs.1500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner was purportedly passed. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced the file relating to the aforesaid show cause notice. A perusal of the file shows that on 15.5.2006, a note was recorded by the Administrative Officer to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the amount of Rs.1,69,352/- may not be recovered from the salary of the petitioner as he caused accident due to rash and negligent driving and also on wrong side of the road. The said note was approved by the Joint Commissioner of the Corporation on 16.5.2006. On the basis of said approval, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and reply dealt with on 27.6.2006. The petitioner was asked to furnish the photocopy of the appeal stated to be filed by him against the Award of the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the file does not show that any order was passed by the Competent Authority imposing penalty of recovery of Rs.1,69,322/-, but the note dated 18.10.2006 appears to have been recorded for sending the file to the Superintendent Accounts for the recovery of Rs.1,69,352/- from the pay of the petitioner. By a subsequent note dated 27.10.2006, a sum of Rs.1500/- per month was sought to be recovered from the pay of the petitioner on the basis of the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of the Corporation on 16.5.2006. A perusal of the record shows that after the reply to the show cause notice was passed by the petitioner, no order was passed by the Competent Authority to recover the amount of alleged loss C.W.P.No.18125 of 2006 4 and instalments thereof. It is only during the pendency of the writ petition, an order has been passed. It appears that the order now produced before the Court is to justify the action taken by the respondents in passing the order Annexure P-7 to recover Rs.1500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner so as to recover the alleged amount of Rs.1,69,352/- in instalments. In our view, the order passed by the respondents lacks bonafide as the same has been passed by pre-determined mind to justify the action already taken against the petitioner. In view of the said fact, we set-aside the order dated 1.11.2006, Annexure P-7 and the order dated 20.3.2008 and direct the competent Authority to pass an order afresh considering the contention raised by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 24-03-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE