JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Sec. 304 -A read with Sec. 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/ - was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P -2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357 - which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007 - per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross -appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show -cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/ - from the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v/s. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 . Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.