PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SALEM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.09.2004 in and by which, the respondent has directed to recover the amount paid to the victim due to the accident occured while the petitioner's driver was driving the vehicle, on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) It appears that on 20.6.1994, the petitioner, PC No.1453 was attached to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Mettur, as a driver. On that day, while he was driving the vehicle i.e Police van bearing No.TN-07-G-0412, the same met with an accident and inasmuch as, the petitioner hit the said vehicle against one S.M.Rajamanickam and three others, who are the employees of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Mettur Police Station vide Crime No.390 of 1994 under Sections 239, 337 and 338 IPC for the same which was ultimately charge sheeted. Simultaneously, one of the injured namely S.M.Rajamanickam filed a Motor Accident Case claiming compensation under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Sankari in MCOP No.612 of 1994. However, the petitioner faced trial in the said criminal case and got acquitted. But the claim was allowed by the Tribunal holding that the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 33,500/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of satisfaction of the award with a further cost of Rs. 1,563/- and the liability was mulcted with the Government of Tamil Nadu.

(3.) The Government of Tamil Nadu as such, while satisfying the Award vide G.O. Ms.No.393 Home (Transport IV) dated 01.03.1988, directed recovery of the same from the petitioner. As such, D.O.719 of 2004 dated 20.09.2004, was issued to the petitioner for recovery of the awarded amount of Rs. 41,596/- .Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a notice of show cause on 23.03.2005 asking him to defend himself in case of any grievance against the order dated 20.09.2004 which was received by him on 24.03.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner responded to the same by filing his explanation/representation on 30.03.2005. However, his representation was considered and rejected on 06.04.2005 vide C.No.J2/45335/97 assigning the reasons that there exist no grounds for consideration of his explanation and recovery was effected from 09/04 to 04/05. Challenging the same, the petitioner had preferred this writ petition, for redressal of his such grievance and to quash the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that the impugned order directing recovery on 23.09.2004 is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and as such, cannot be sustained. To be more specific, since no show cause notice was served on him prior to directing the recovery, the said order is violative of the principles of natural justice. Further more, the recovery being made due to alleged misconduct that is negligence in performance on his duty, the same could not have been made without initiating due Departmental Proceedings.