KIRPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Kirpal Singh was a driver of a Bus which met with an unfortunate accident resulting in the death of a passenger and damage of the vehicle. Claims were lodged before the MACT, Jammu by the family of the victim and compensation was granted to them. However, the Tribunal did not return a finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of Kirpal Singh. The accident also led to registration of an FIR for rash and negligent driving and Kirpal Singh was prosecuted under Ss. 279, 337 and 340 -A IPC in the Court of the Munsiff/JMIC, Hiranagar in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. In the trial, Kirpal Singh was acquitted of the charges framed against him as the prosecution failed to bring any incriminating evidence against him. His personal surety bonds were discharged. Kirpal Singh was found innocent by the trial Court on September 25, 2000. That was the end of the trial. It may be noted that the accident occurred while Kirpal Singh was driving bus No. PB -12 -B -9405 journeying from Jammu to Pathankot when an offending truck collided with the bus resulting in the death of Mohd. Uasuf. In the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, a finding of rash and negligent against Kirpal Singh was not returned on the evidence. The cumulative effect of the acquittal in the criminal trial and finding of no fault by the Tribunal was that Kirpal Singh had secured his freedom from both criminal and civil liability.

(2.) However, the employer Punjab Roadways charge -sheeted Kirpal Singh for causing the accident due to his negligent and careless driving as a result of which Punjab Roadways had to pay compensation along with 12% interest to the claimants thereby Government had suffered a financial loss of Rs. 2,66,452/ - as a result of the accident. Kirpal Singh was charge -sheeted on May 29, 2003. He was called upon to submit a reply to the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana failing which it would be deemed that he has nothing to say in his defence. The reply was not found satisfactory and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer records in his report that as per inquiry conducted from the people involved in the accident there was no fault of the bus driver. In the investigation conducted by the Jammu police it was the truck driver who was found guilty because his truck lost control and hit the bus driven by Kirpal Singh. However, the Inquiry Officer invoked the law of torts and fastened responsibility on Kirpal Singh for having caused financial loss to the employer. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated March 24, 2006 has noted that as per Government letter No. EA -2/7670 -86 dated July 17, 2001 (Ex. D -4) recovery is not to be made from drivers in the situations indicated in the policy. However, the Inquiry Officer was keeled over by the fact that MACT, Jammu have fastened liability between the truck driver and the bus driver to be joint and several in the operative part of the award and had apportioned negligence on 50:50 basis for which the Department had to pay Rs. 2,66,452/ - and the remaining half was to be paid by the owner/truck driver/Insurance Company. In this manner, the charges levelled against Kirpal Singh for rash and negligent driving were proven in view of the operative directions of the MACT, Jammu even though Kirpal Singh was not found guilty of the offences he was charged with.

(3.) This was the recovery part of the inquiry proceedings initiated against Kirpal Singh but that was not end of his woes. Thereafter, Kirpal Singh was issued a show cause notice on November 23, 2007 under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 ("1970 Rules") to show cause as to why Rule 5 be not invoked and his three annual grade increments with cumulative effect be not stopped as a result of conclusion in the inquiry report. He was asked to make a reply to the Director State Transport Punjab.