R ANBALAGAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of recovery dated 1.7.2005 passed by the second respondent and that of the appellate authority dated 18.11.2005 and direct the respondents to repay the recovered amount with interest.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Police Jeep Driver and on 31.5.1998 the Jeep met with an accident involving a two-wheeler. The driver of the two-wheeler died in the said accident and another person injured. A case in C.C.No.176 of 1998 was filed in that regard and ultimately the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court by Judgment dated 11.8.1999.It is the case of the petitioner that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and after enquiry, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction in the scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. On appeal, the appellate authority by his proceedings dated 3.5.2001 modified the punishment to that of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner also voluntarily retired on 31.5.2003 as Head Constable. That being so, the petitioner is aggrieved by the issue of the impugned order of recovery dated 1.7.2005 effecting recovery of a sum of Rs.36,500/- representing 5% of the award amount ordered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. According to the petitioner, when he has already been punished in the disciplinary proceedings by imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect, passing the impugned order of recovery is unsustainable as it would amount to second punishment for the same delinquency. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the legal heirs of the deceased and the other injured person in the accident filed MCOP Nos.692/1998 and 807/1998 and the said claim petitions were allowed by the Tribunal by directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,83,000/- towards compensation with interest at 9% p.a. and costs. Accordingly, the respondents deposited a total sum of Rs.7,30,406/- in the Court on 18.7.2003 and 20.1.2004. Thereafter in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.393 Home Transport IV Department, dated 1.3.1988, a sum of Rs.36,500/- representing 5% of the award amount paid by the respondents is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner in 36 installments by order dated 1.7.2005. As the petitioner voluntarily retired on 31.5.2003, recovery was given effect to from his pension. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case was by giving benefit of doubt. The petitioner was punished for causing the accident, in a charge framed under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.No.228 of 1998 by reducing his pay by one stage for one year and therefore the impugned recovery order passed is valid.