C. Balasubramanian Vs The Commandant 9th Battalion T.S.P. and Superintendent of Police

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

D. Hariparanthaman, J.@mdashThe Original Application in O.A. No. 1049 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") is the present writ petition.

2. Heard the submissions made by Mr.K.Sanjay, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. The petitioner was working as Police Constable cum Driver in Tamil Nadu Special Police, Manimutharu. On 25.02.1988, while he was driving Police Jeep on treasury duty, he met with an accident upon one Chinnakanni alias Bhadrakali and she sustained severe injuries. A case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC was registered in Crime No. 90 of 1998 on the file of the Ambasamudram Police Station at Tirunelveli District. However, no charge sheet was filed and the matter was dropped as the investigation revealed that no case was made out.

4. The injured filed M.C.O.P. No. 23 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambai. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- with 12% interest from 25.08.1988. A sum of Rs.1,01,255/- was deposited by the Government in the said Court, in compliance with the order of the Tribunal.

5. While so, the impugned order dated 27.07.2001 was passed by the first respondent, directing a recovery of Rs.1,01,255/- from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month in 50 instalments and thereafter Rs.1,255/- towards the last instalment.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A. No. 1049 of 2002 (W.P. No. 8380 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order dated 27.07.2001 of the first respondent.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the criminal case was dropped as "mistake of fact". The learned Counsel further submits that no departmental action was taken by the respondents relating to accident. Therefore, there is no basis for making recovery from the salary of the petitioner, relating to the accident, that took place on 25.02.1988 upon one Chinnakanni alias Bhadrakali.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondents pleaded before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the petitioner was not responsible for the accident. It was pleaded therein that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the claimant. The learned Counsel also has produced a copy of the counter statement filed by the respondents before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Paras 2 to 5 of the said counter are extracted here-under:

VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED

Since the respondents took such a plea, it is submitted that the respondents are not justified in passing the impugned order to recover Rs.1,01,255/- from the salary of the petitioner.

9. I have considered the submissions made on either side. Before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not heard. There is no basis for making recovery of Rs.1,01,255/- from the salary of the petitioner. Before passing any adverse order, the concerned person should be heard in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It is well settled by the Honourable Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others, that if an adverse order resulting in civil consequences is passed, concerned person should be heard, otherwise, such an order is vitiated. In this case, admittedly the petitioner was not heard.

10. However, the respondents did not choose to initiate any departmental action to ascertain the negligence, if any, on the part of the petitioner, in causing the accident. In the absence of departmental action to find out, whether the petitioner was negligent and whether he was responsible for causing the accident, no order imposing the penalty of recovery would arise.

11. In this case, it is also relevant that the criminal case was also dropped after investigation. In such circumstances, the respondents should not have imposed an order of recovery. More importantly, when the respondents filed counter statement in categorical terms before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the petitioner was not responsible for the accident, the petitioner cannot be imposed the order of recovery, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam DN-II) Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director, Tiruchirapalli and Anr. V.P. Karuppusamy) reported in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Dn-II) Ltd. Vs. P. Karuppusamy, .

12. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.