COMMISSIONER, THOVALAI PANCHAYAT UNION Vs. P LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order of the learned single Judge, by which, the order impugned, dated 20.12.1999, passed by the appellant seeking to recover a sum of Rs.2,50,230/- from the first respondent by way of compensation was set aside.

(2.) The first respondent, who is the respondent herein, was a driver working with the appellant. He has since retired. On certain allegations, departmental proceedings came to be initiated and, after considering the explanation given by the first respondent, charges have been framed by the appellant. The charges pertain to the alleged negligence on the part of the first respondent in causing an accident, which resulted in the death of a person and consequently, a sum of Rs.2,50,230/- has been ordered by the Tribunal as compensation. During the pendency of the proceedings, an order of recovery, by way of the order impugned, has been passed by the appellant based upon the Audit Report and taking note of the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 1995. Challenging the same, the respondent filed the writ petition, which has been allowed by the learned single Judge by holding that, in the absence of any enquiry, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Being aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) A perusal of the order impugned would show that it has been passed making reliance upon the Audit Report and the decision rendered in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 1995. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the departmental proceedings were pending at the time of passing of the order impugned. We of the considered view that the order impugned ought not to have been passed when the proceedings are pending against the respondent. Further more, the order impugned has been passed without hearing the respondent. On the contrary, it has been passed, based upon the Audit objection and the decision rendered in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 1995, as the only piece of evidence and the same cannot be binding on the first respondent. It is also to be seen that the order impugned has got civil consequences, because an order of recovery is sought to be made against the first respondent. Therefore, we are of the view that the said order has been rightly set aside by the learned single Judge, as if suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice.