RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order Annexure P-3 dated 17.10.1994 vide which the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Irrigation and Power Department directed Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation, Haryana to make recovery from the petitioner's salary the amount of compensation which the government had to pay in terms of the award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The other prayer made in the petition is to quash the consequential communication dated 27.1.1995 vide which the Executive Engineer, SYL, Water Service Division, Ambala directed the Sub Divisional Officer, SYL Mechanical Sub Division, Ambala to recover Rs. 77,000/- from the pay of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner joined service as work-charged Driver in the Irrigation Department on 20.12.1971. His services were regularised in November, 1980. He was impeded as a respondent in M.A.C.T. Case No. 120 of 1988 filed for award of compensation in respect of an accident which is said to have been taken place on 13.8.1988 involving truck No. HYA-3570 being driven by him. The Tribunal passed award dated 28.9.1990 for payment of compensation with interest @ 12% per annul. Appeal filed by the State Government against the award of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, the State Government initiated departmental enquiry to fix the responsibility of the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted report with the finding that the petitioner was not guilty. However, the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Irrigation and Power Department, disagreed with the enquiry officer and ordered recovery of the compensation from the petitioner. This was conveyed to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, Haryana vide memo Annexure P-3 dated 17.10.1994. The Engineer-in-Chief endorsed a copy of the memo to the Executive Engineer, SYL Water Service Division, Ambala who sent letter Annexure P-4 dated 29.1.1995 to the Sub Divisional Officer to recover Rs. 77,000/- from the petitioner.

(3.) One of the grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the direction by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana is that while recording disagreement with the enquiry report and passing the order for recovery, the officer concerned did not give him action-oriented notice and opportunity of hearing.