JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure A-2 dated 09.09.2004 ordering recovery of Rs. 13,39,268/- in installments from Petitioner and quashing of Office order dated 16.09.2004 ordering recovery of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the salary of the Petitioner from September, 2004 onwards.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that Petitioner after superannuation from Army was appointed as driver against the post of Ex-serviceman in the year 1986 in the department. MACC Nos. 44, 45 and 46-S/2 of 1999 were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla. The Petitioner was Respondent No. 3 in those petitions. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla awarded a sum of Rs. 13,39,268/- on 30.06.2004 in those petitions. On the basis of award, Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. has requested Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 9.9.2004 to ensure recovery of 13,39,268/- in installments from Petitioner. It has been alleged by Petitioner that Respondents No. 1, 2 in their reply before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal denied that Petitioner was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. But now, the Respondents No. 1, 2 have taken totally contrary stand, hence letter dated 9.9.2004 is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

(3.) There was a relationship of master and servant between the Petitioner and Respondents and assuming that accident took place due to negligence of the Petitioner, in that case also, the Petitioner being employee of Respondents, therefore, Respondents are vicariously liable to indemnify the Petitioner. The accident took place during the course of employment of Petitioner. This could be considered only in an inquiry, hence Respondents have erred in ordering recovery of 13,39,268/- on the basis of letter dated 9.9.2004 and office order dated 16.9.2004 which are wrong and illegal and are liable to be quashed. It is also the case of the Petitioner that recovery ordered by Respondents against the Petitioner of an amount of 13,39,268/- on the basis of award dated 30.6.2004 is not sustainable. The recovery, if any, can be made from the Petitioner only on the basis of disciplinary proceedings and not otherwise.