Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a police van driver challenging departmental orders that recovered compensation from his salary. The court held that despite the set-aside of the black mark punishment, the petitioner was responsible for the accident causing injury to a victim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.29873 of 2008
K.Kumaravel .. Petitioner
-vs-
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in G.O. (2D) No.199 Home (POL XI) Department dated 30.05.2005 and the consequential orders of the fourth and third respondents in 'F' Order in PR No.298/PR 2(2)/2006 dated 01.08.2007 and C.No.53115/PRII(2)/2008 dated 27.09.2008 respectively and quash the same and direct the third respondent to repay the amount of Rs.4,521/- (Rupees Four thousand five hundred and twenty one only) to the petitioner which was recovered from his salary for the October and November 2008 months.
For Petitioner :: Mr.N.Raja Senthoor Pandian For Respondents :: Mr.K.Ravikumar,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O. (2D) No.199 Home (POL XI) Department dated 30.05.2005 and the consequential orders of the fourth and third respondents in 'F' Order in PR No.298/PR 2(2)/2006 dated 01.08.2007 and C.No.53115/PRII(2)/2008 dated 27.09.2008 and seeking a direction to the third respondent to repay the amount of Rs.4,521/- (Rupees Four thousand five hundred and twenty one only) to the petitioner which was recovered from his salary for the months of October and November 2008.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 06.02.2001, while the petitioner was discharging his duty as Driver of the Police Van bearing Registration No.TN 07G-0735, a school girl namely, Radha has fallen down before the said vehicle due to loss of her balance because of her bag caught up on a bicycle and met with an accident. In the above said accident, the said girl sustained injuries and in respect of the same, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.42 of 2001 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC on the file of the H1 Washermenpet Traffic Investigation Police Station. Thereafter, the said case was closed as mistake of fact since there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the said vehicle. However, the said injured girl had filed M.C.O.P. No.82 of 2003 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonamallee and after Trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamallee, had passed an Award to the tune of Rs.92,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount into the Court.
3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was not impleaded as one of the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.82 of 2003. When the petitioner was not found guilty by the police at the time of closing the F.I.R. and he was also not impleaded as party on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it is not open to the respondents to recover the amount from the salary of the petitioner on the basis of the Award passed by the Tribunal. Adding further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also prosecuted departmentally by enquiring departmental action and finally, he was imposed with the punishment of black mark and therefore, he cannot be punished by way of passing the impugned order recovering an amount of Rs.1,12,521/- that was paid by the department, applying vicarious liability. When the petitioner was only a van driver, driven the vehicle on the date
of accident and due to the accident, the victim girl Radha sustained injuries for which she had claimed compensation without impleading the petitioner before the Tribunal and applying vicarious liability for the accident occurred, the department had paid the amount, it is not legally permissible on the part of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai to pass the impugned order recovering the entire amount. Learned Counsel has also placed an order dated 21.10.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No.26541 of 2008.
4.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, referring to the detailed counter affidavit, would submit that the punishment of black mark has been set aside. It is also relevant to extract para 3(e) of the counter affidavit as under:
'3(e)It is submitted that the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of black mark on 01.08.2007 and also ordered to recover a sum of Rs.1,12,521/- from the petitioner towards the compensation amount paid to victim girl Radha as ordered by the Government in GO 2 (D) No.199, Home (Pol.XI) Department, dated 30.05.2005. The petitioner has not preferred any appeal against this order, the petitioner has given a grievance petition to Director General of Police on 26.03.2008. The Director General of Police (i.e. the second respondent) has modified the punishment vide its proceedings in Rc.No.061197/AP 3(3)/2008, dated 17.11.2008 as follows:
“The charge under Count No.1 has been framed for the same set of charge as in the criminal case. The criminal case ended in acquittal. Hence, this Count of the charge does not stand. With regard to charge under Count No.2, a sum of Rs.1,12,538/- towards the compensation amount paid to the victim girl, was levied and recovered from the mercy petitioner as ordered by the Government in GO 2(D) No.199, Home (Pol.XI) Department, dated 30.05.2005. Imposing a punishment after recovering the amount of compensation will amount to double jeopardy. Considering all these factors, I set aside the punishment of black mark awarded to the petitioner.” '
5.At the outset, it may be made clear that the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned W.P. clearly shows that the driver of the vehicle was able to establish his case before the Criminal Court and he obtained an order of acquittal. In the present case, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally for the accident caused by him and he was issued with the charge
memo and the following charges are levelled against him:
(i)”fle;j 06/02/2001 md;W TN 07 G 0735 vd;w muR thfdj;jpy; Xl;Leh; fhtyuhd ePh; fhty; fl;Lg;ghl;liwapy; ,Ue;J fhtyh;fis Vw;wpf;bfhz;L rl;lk; xG';F ghJfhg;g[ gzpf;fhf T.H. nuhl;oy; cs;s f';fh fhnthp fy;ahz kz;lgj;jpy; ,wf;fptpl;L mnj nuhl;oy; thfdj;ij gpd; nehf;fp Xl;o gs;sp khztpapd; kPJ nkhjp tpgj;J Vw;gLj;jp tz;zhug;ngl;il rufk; H-1 nghf;Ftuj;Jg;gphpt[ Fw;w vz; 42/H1/2001, rl;lg;gphpt[ 337, 279 IPC-y; <Lgl;l fz;of;fj;jf;f xG';fPdkhd bray;/
(ii)nkw;fz;l muR thfdj;ij m$hf;fpuijahft[k;. ftdkpd;wpa[k; Xl;o gs;sp khztpapd; kPJ nkhjp. khztpf;F ec&;l <lhf bfhLf;fg;gl;l U: .1,12,521/muR gzk; ,Hg;g[ Vw;gl fhuzkhf ,Ue;j fz;of;fj;jf;f xG';fPzkhd bray;/
6.Merely for the fact that the punishment of black mark has been set aside, the petitioner cannot say that he was not responsible for the accident when the petitioner was unable to prove that the charges levelled against him were vague. Admittedly, when the petitioner, while driving the vehicle on the date of accident, caused injury to the victim girl Radha, who was able to get an Award from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P., it is not open to the petitioner to say that he should be absolved from the payment of compensation. As the petitioner was already found guilty of having committed negligent driving that led to the accident and consequently, resulted in the injury to the victim girl, this Court finds no merit in the
writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vga
The Government of Tamil Nadu
+2cc to Mr.N.Raja Senthoor Pandian, Advocate, S.R.No.36444 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.37082
W.P.No.29873 of 2008
KJ(CO)
CS/27/06/2019
CS/31/07/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is liable to repay the compensation amount recovered from his salary despite the set-aside of the black mark punishment.
Whether vicarious liability attaches to the petitioner as a van driver for the accident causing injury to the victim.
Whether the impugned departmental orders levying recovery from salary are legally permissible.
K. Kumaravel
The Government of Tamil Nadu
The Director General of Police
The Commissioner of Police Great Chennai City
The Deputy Commissioner of Police Motor Transport
T. Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
