MANGILAL Vs. THE RSRTC AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner served with a charge sheet on 9.11.1996 on the basis of an order passed by the Accidents Claims Tribunal allowing the claim petition of the claimants against the respondent Corporation and the petitioner, who was driver of the bus involved in the accident. Though, the enquiry officer held that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges levelled against him and even petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court for offence under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, however, the Disciplinary Authority, relying on the judgment and the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ordered for recovery of Rs.48,000.00 from the petitioner. Since the petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the above amount was to be deducted from the amount of gratuity. The order dated 31.8.1999 passed by the Disciplinary authority as also the consequential orders dated 5.4.2000 and 26.2.2002 are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The charge of negligent driving has not been proved in the departmental enquiry since no evidence as it was produced before the enquiry officer except for the order of the Tribunal. The recovery has been ordered to be made only on the basis of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the claimants. In view of the titled position of law on the question of vicarious liability of the owner of the vehicle in such matters, in opinion, the impugned order passed by the respondents not be sustained in the eyes of law.

(3.) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 31.8.1999 and consequential orders dated 5.4.2000 and 26.2.2002 are quashed and set side. The respondents are directed to pay the amount so deducted to the petitioner within thirty days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ petition allowed.