Quashed

Sumer Singh v. Chairman, R.S.R.T.C. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2022CW/3728/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court quashed orders directing recovery of damages from a driver's salary. The court held such orders violated natural justice due to lack of prior notice and departmental inquiry, especially given the petitioner's prior criminal acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 28.06.1999 and 28.08.1999 setting aside recovery of Rs.3,84,430 were quashed.

Sumer Singh Vs Chairman, R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3728/1999

Sumer Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

Chairman, R.S.R.T.C And Ors.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Dr. Harish Purohit

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶10

04/08/2022

¶11

The present petition has been filed against the orders dated 28.06.1999 and 28.08.1999 whereby an amount of Rs.3,84,430/had been sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in monthly installments.

¶12

The facts of the case are that the petitioner, a driver with the respondent-Department, was alleged to be involved in an accident which took place on 10.08.1995. A claim by the claimants therein was filed before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and an award dated 01.04.1998 was passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest. In compliance of the award dated 01.04.1998, the respondentDepartment was required to pay the said amount to the claimants therein. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.08.1999 was passed whereby it was held that as the petitioner was guilty for the accident and the respondent-Department had to suffer the financial loss equal to the award amount, the said amount would be recoverable from the salary of the petitioner in monthly

¶13

(2 of 2)

¶14

[CW-3728/1999]

¶15

installments. Vide interim order dated 04.10.1999, the recovery was stayed by this Court.

¶16

A perusal of the record makes it clear that the impugned orders have been passed without serving any prior notice on the petitioner and without holding any disciplinary/departmental inquiry against him. No notice whatsoever had been served on him prior to the issuance of the impugned orders. The present one is therefore a clear case of breach of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside only on this sole ground. Further it is also clear on record that the petitioner was honorably acquitted vide order dated 18.12.1997 in the criminal proceedings initiated against him qua the accident in question. Therefore, it was mandatory for the respondentDepartment to hold an inquiry in terms of law if it intended to recover any amount paid by it qua its vicarious liability. It is admitted on record that no inquiry as required was conducted against the petitioner and the impugned order had been passed straightaway.

¶17

In view of the admitted position on record, the impugned orders dated 28.06.1999 and 28.08.1999 being passed totally in breach of principles of natural justice deserve to be and are hereby quashed.

¶18

With the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶19

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶20

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶21

96-T.Singh/-

Sumer Singh v. Chairman, R.S.R.T.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumer Singh v. Chairman, R.S.R.T.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badri Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajju Jatav Vs State and Ors.

Sharda Bishnoi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Chagen Lal Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sugan Dan Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Andanr