JAWAHARLAL NEHRU KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA Vs. SATYAVEER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20.9.1994, passed by learned Single Judge, holding that the respondent as employee of Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, for short, 'JNKV', could avail the remedy of civil suit. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, quashed the order of the Civil Court (Annexure P/10 to the writ petition) and has remanded the matter to that Court with a direction to decide the same on merits.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as under. The respondent was employed with the appellant Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, as a Driver. He joined service under the appointment order dated 25.9.1979. The jeep No. CPW 112 which he was driving, met with an accident on 25.1.1982 and two employees of the University who were occupants with others in the jeep, died. As the result of the said accident, the respondent employee was prosecuted for offence under section 304 -A, IPC, for rash and negligent driving, in the Criminal Court, but, by judgment dated 29.12.1983, he was acquitted. The dependents of one of the deceased employees filed a claim petition in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena. The Claims Tribunal passed an award on 22.10.1986 granting compensation to the dependents of the deceased and in its Award, recorded a finding that the respondent was rash and negligent in driving which resulted in the accident. The case of the respondent driver before the Claims Tribunal was that because of the rain and silt on the road, the jeep slipped and he was not rash and negligent in driving. As the jeep was insured, the Insurance Company was jointly and severally held liable for payment of compensation. The appellant JNKV did not prefer any appeal against the Award. The respondent, however, preferred an appeal to this Court. The appeal preferred by him was, however, dismissed summarily by the order dated 26.3.1987 by this Court holding that since the Insurance Company has also been made liable jointly with the owner of the vehicle and the driver, the driver alone could not be held to be an aggrieved party. For the reason alone, the appeal was summarily dismissed.

(3.) THE respondent employee submitted a written reply to the show -cause notice taking a plea, inter -alia, that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court and the finding of the Claims Tribunal cannot be taken as a basis for holding him guilty of any misconduct. He also claimed a right of being given an opportunity of hearing in a full -fledged enquiry as per the Rules. The University, however, by the order dated 1.4.1987 (Annexure P/8 to the writ petition), terminated his services only on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving, recorded by the Claims Tribunal against him in the Award.