GAJE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure P-7), whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated and even recovery of amount of Rs. 12,41,807/-, allegedly paid by the Department in two MACT cases, has been ordered to be effected from the petitioner.

(2.) Mr.R.A.Sheoran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver through regular process in the year 1990 and at the time of appointment, he submitted his driving licence. Unfortunately, on 5.9.1999, while driving the Bus, met with an accident, in which two persons, namely, Satyawan and Mohinder Singh died. An FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Jind. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.9.1999 and was also served with a charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet and considering the contents of his reply, the petitioner was, vide order dated 15.1.2004 (Annexure P-1), ordered to be reinstated pending enquiry against him The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind vide judgment dated 14.11.2005, acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The legal heirs of the deceased, who died in the accident, invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") by filing the claim petition under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was contested by the Management and as well as the petitioner-driver. The Tribunal, vide award dated 9.5.2003, found that the licence held by the petitioner was fake as the report obtained by an Advocate was not conclusive piece of evidence and, thus, held that the Insurance Company did not discharge the onus by examining the official from the concerned licensing authority. The Tribunal ordered, that since the Insurance Company had indemnified the owner, in the first instance, it would make the payment of compensation to the claimants, but, however, recovery rights were given to the Insurance Company. The operative part of the award of the Tribunal dated 9.5.2003, thus, reads:-

(3.) It is evident that the Insurance Company was given liberty to recover the amount from the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, if so desired.