Dismissed

U.P. State Road Transport Corp.Thru. Regional Manager and Ors. v. Mahant Ram Yadav

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024SPLA/356/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal challenges an order by Allahabad High Court which dismissed departmental penalties and recovery directed against a bus driver. The Specific Bench held that the authority could not impose liability for negligence beyond the specific charges of vehicular loss proved during the departmental inquiry, despite a civil finding of contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

The amount recovered from the respondent is to be paid back within three weeks.

U.P. State Road Transport Corp.Thru. Regional… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30372-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 356 of 2021

¶4

Appellants :- U.P. State Road Transport Corp.Thru. Regional Manager And Ors. Respondent :- Mahant Ram Yadav Counsel for Appellants :- Shri Anuj Kudesia with Shri Vikas Kumar Agrawal, Advocates for the Appellants Counsel for Respondent :- Shri Anuruddh Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22820 (S/S) of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the impugned orders dated 31.07.2017 and 18.05.2018 whereby a recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- was directed against the respondent has been set aside.

¶7

The respondent-driver with the appellant-Corporation was involved in a road accident which happened on 11.12.2015, a charge-sheet dated 21.01.2016 was issued to him, inter-alia, on the charges pertaining to rash and negligent driving resulting in the accident and for causing loss to the tune of Rs.3,40,977/- on account of the bus in question, remaining unavailable for operations.

¶8

The Enquiry Officer, after enquiry was held, found the respondent guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 31.07.2017, came to the conclusion as under:-

¶9

"जजाሞच अधधिकजररी दजरज अपनरी जजॉच आख्यज मम उ्ሹ ददररटनज मम आररोपरी करो डቐ኏टरी कक ददौरजन शशिधथिलतज लजपरवजहरी हकतद अाሞशिततः दरोषरी बतजयज गयज हहै। ररपरोटरकतजर कक अनदसजर उ्ሹ रटनज सक हहए शकमरी० कक स्थिगन सक रू०340827(तरीन लजख चजधलस हजजर आठ सदौ सतजइस) रू० ककी शनगम रजजस्व ककी हजशन हहई। परन्तद उ्ሹ हजशन हकतद आररोपरी उतरदजयरी नहीሻ हहै क्योሱशक ददररटनज कक बजद वजहन करो करोटर सक अवमद्ሹ करजनक मम हहआ शवलम्ब आररोपरी कक कजरण नहीሻ हहआ, धजससक जजॉच कक समय दरोनोሱ ररपरोटरकतजरओाሞ दजरज भरी स्वरीकजर शकयज गयज हहै। चቐ኏ूማशक ददररटनज रशटत हहई हहै एवाሞ उससक उत्प्ቐ क्लकम वजदोሱ मम मज० न्यजयजलय दजरज आररोपरी 80% यरोगदजयरी उप क ज कज उतरदजयरी बतजयज गयज हहै। ऐसरी सस्थिशत मम ्ቚस्तजशवत दण्ड पजररत शकयज जजनज न्यजय साሞगत नहीሻ हहै। ्ቚस्तजशवत दण्ड करो शशिधथिल शकयज जजतज हहै।

¶10

अततः ्ቚस्तदत ्ቚकरण मम ्ቚस्तजशवत दण्ड करो शशिधथिल करतक हहए आररोपरी शरी महन्तरजम यजदव चजलक अकबरपदर शडपरो कक वकतन/दकयक सक रू० 250000/- (दरो लजख पचजस हजजर) मज्ቔ ककी कटदौतरी शनयमजनदसजर शकयक जजनक कज आदकशि पजररत शकयज जजतज हहै। एतद्दजरज ्ቚकरण शनस्तजररत शकयज जजतज हहै।"

¶11

Feeling aggrieved, a departmental appeal was filed by the respondent which also came to be rejected by order dated 18.05.2018.

¶12

Aggrieved by both the orders, the respondent filed a writ petition before this Court wherein after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the recovery which was sought to be made based on the award passed in claim case, was not indicated in the charge-sheet, therefore, the same cannot be made a basis for the recovery and consequently allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 31.07.2017 and 18.05.2018.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions with reference to the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Azamgarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') dated 24.04.2017 that the Tribunal had found the respondent-driver also guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 80% and the said finding has become final as the respondent has not challenged the said finding of the Tribunal by filing an appeal or otherwise and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was liable to pay amount.

¶14

Further submissions have been made that the amount has been reduced from Rs.3,40,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- and, therefore also, the respondent had no case.

¶15

Submissions have also been made that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the charge-sheet did not contain the charge in this regard and no finding on the said aspect has been recorded, which was not required on account of the finding of the Tribunal and on that count also the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders impugned.

¶17

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶18

The facts are not in dispute wherein on account of the

¶19

accident which occurred on 11.12.2015, a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent on 21.01.2016 wherein the charges, inter-alia , pertained to his negligence in driving the bus in question and causing loss to the extent of Rs.3,40,977/-, and the charge of loss was very specific i.e. on account of nonoperation of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. The Disciplinary Authority, after the enquiry report was submitted and the respondent made his submissions, came to the conclusion which has been quoted hereinbefore, the Disciplinary Authority came to a specific finding that though there was revenue loss to the tune of Rs.3,40,827/-, however, for the said loss, the respondent cannot be held liable, however, in the same breath, he ordered that as the accident had occurred and in the claim case pertaining to the same accident, he has been held guilty for 80% contributory negligence and, therefore, he reduced the amount of penalty from Rs.3,40,827/to Rs.2,50,000/-. Once, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that for the loss which was specifically alleged in the charge-sheet, the respondent was not liable, the matter should have stopped there.

¶20

Taking into consideration the fact that in the claim case, the Tribunal had found him guilty of 80% contributory negligence and, therefore, he was liable to make payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, apparently was dehors the charges and could not have been imposed once a finding in relation to the charge has been recorded without issuing any additional notice/charges to the respondent.

¶21

The fact that the Tribunal has only directed the appellantCorporation to make payment of the amount of compensation is a pointer to the fact that the recovery could not have been made from the respondent.

¶22

In view of the above discussions, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires any interference, consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶23

In case pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the amount recovered from the respondent has not been paid back to him, the same shall be paid back to him within a period of three weeks.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P. State Road Transport Corp.Thru. Regional Manager and Ors. v. Mahant Ram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. State Road Transport Corp.Thru. Regional Manager and Ors. v. Mahant Ram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Public Works Deptt. Secrt. Lko. and Others Vs M/S Shanti Construction Thru. Its Partner Sh. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal

Suresh Chandra Yadav Vs Honble Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Lko. and Others

Prakriti Consultants Services Lucknow Thru. Its M.D. Vs Director Ministry of Environment and Forest I.A. Division and

Indra Jeet Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Secy. Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Shivam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences , Lko. Thru. Director vs M/S S.C. Agarwal Purana Qila , Lko. Thru. Proprietor Mr. S.C. Agarwal