K.Annadurai v. The Chief Engineer Agricultural Engineering Department Chennai-352 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 6.8.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.34959 of 2006 (T)O.A.No.628 of 2001K.Annadurai.. Petitioner vs. 1. The Chief Engineer Agricultural Engineering Department Chennai-352. The Superintendent Engineer Agricultural Engineering Department Salem3. The Assistant Executive Engineer Agricultural Engineering Department Peraumbalur .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the recordsrelating to Proc.No.E.1304/94, dated 26.12.2000 of the thirdrespondent quash the same. For petitioner : Ms.R.PrasanaDevy For respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government PleaderO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andthe learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a Jeep Driver in the AgriculturalEngineering Department. On 23.5.1994, while he was on duty in theoffice of the Executive Engineer (Agricultural Engineering),Tiruchirapalli, he had taken a vehicle, with registration No.TDY1895, to the work shop, for attending to some minor repairs. Onhis way to the workshop, he had parked the vehicle in front of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hotel, at Ariyalur, to have light refreshment. When he came outof the Hotel, he found that the vehicle was missing. He was toldthat a person, by name Arjunan, had taken the vehicle,unauthorisedly and had caused an accident. Due to the accident,one Saraswathi, had suffered serious injuries. Therefore, a claimpetition had been made, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.315 of 1995, on thefile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur, claimingcompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Government. 3. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the DistrictCollector, Tiruchirapalli, and the Executive Engineer(Agricultural Engineering), Tiruchirapalli, had been cited as therespondents in the Motor Accident Claims case. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents beforethe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur, it has been statedthat the accident had occurred, while the vehicle was beingdriven, unauthorisedly, by one Arjunan and that the Departmentwas not in any way responsible for the accident. The petitionerhad not been impleaded as a party in the said case. However, theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur, by its judgment, dated4.8.1999, had awarded a compensation of Rs.43,600/- to theclaimant, namely, Saraswathi. Thereafter, the third respondent,by his proceedings No.E.1304/94, dated 25.1.2000, had initiatedproceedings, against the petitioner, under Rule 17(a) of theTamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, byframing the following charges. "1. That the petitioner had carelessly left theJeep No.TDY 1895 on 23.5.1994 without locking thevehicle.2. By such carelessness of the petitioner, he hadcaused loss of Rs.43,600/- to the Government." 5. Thereafter, the third respondent had passed the finalorders, in Pro.No.E.1304/94, dated 26.12.2000, directing therecovery of a total sum of Rs.79,626/- from the pay of thepetitioner, in monthly instalments. 6. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of therespondents, it has been stated that, on 23.5.1994, at about 9.00p.m., one Saraswathi of Ariyalur was hit by the Jeep bearingregistration No.TDY 1895, belonging to the office of theAssistant Executive Engineer (Agricultural Engineering), SoilConservation Scheme, Ariyalur. The Inspector of Police, Ariyalur,had stated in his report that the vehicle had not been lockedwhen it was parked in front of the Hotel. One Arjunan took awaythe vehicle and due to his rash driving, he had caused anaccident, causing injury to Saraswathy. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur, in itsorder, dated 4.8.1999, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.315 of 1995, hadheld that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on thepart of the driver and it had awarded a compensation ofRs.43,600/-, together with 12% interest, to be paid to theclaimant. The Government, in G.O.Ms.No.36, AgricultureDepartment, dated 9.2.2001, had sanctioned a sum of Rs.79,626/-,including the interest and other charges payable to the claimant.8. Disciplinary action had been initiated against thepetitioner, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on 25.1.2000, and final orders hadbeen passed, on 26.12.2000, to recover the amount paid ascompensation, from the petitioner. 9. It has been further stated that since it was a Sunday,there was no need for the petitioner to take out the vehicle atnight. As a responsible Government servant and as the custodianof the Government property, the petitioner ought to have lockedthe vehicle before going into the Hotel to take refreshment.Further, on coming to know that the vehicle was missing, heshould have informed the Superiors and should have also lodged acomplaint with the police. According to the police report,Arjunan is known to the petitioner. Therefore, since the accidenthad occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner,he is responsible for the loss caused to the Government by way ofthe payment of compensation to the injured, saraswathi. Eventhough no enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner,since there is no such necessity, the departmental proceedingswere initiated, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Ariyalur, had come to its conclusion, after a detailedenquiry. In such circumstances, the present writ petition filedby the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liableto be dismissed. 10. In support of his averments, the learned counselappearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of theDivision Bench of this Court, reported in T.N.S.T.C. (KUMBAKONAMDN-II) LTD., Vs. P.KARUPPUSAMY (2008) 1 MLJ 694), wherein it hasbeen held that the Transport Corporation, having taken a pleabefore the Claims Tribunal that their employee (Bus Driver) wasnot responsible for the accident, cannot dismiss him afterconducting domestic enquiry and by holding that he was guilty ofthe charges. 11. Per contra, the Additional Government Pleader, appearingfor the respondents, had placed before this Court G.O.Ms.No.398,Home (TR.IV) Department, dated 1.3.1988, in support of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contentions raised on behalf of the respondents. The saidGovernment Order reads as follows:"Under Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939, Vehicles owned by Central and State Governmentsneed not be insured. Accordingly to rule 22 of theTamil Nadu Departmental Vehicles Control Rules 1976 allGovernment owned vehicles/enterprise are exempted frominsurance against third party risks and the Governmenthave to settle the claims, if any, arising out of theaccidents in which departmental vehicles are involved,in the same way as the private insurance companies withwhich private motor vehicles are generally insured. TheGovernment vehicles in consultation with the Director,Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department. The Director,Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department is of the opinionthat the Government Vehicles need not covered byinsurance policies against third party risk, since itwill involve payment of a huge amounts as premium. 2. Government Accept the views of the Director,Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department. Government alsodirect that the present procedure laid down in rule 22of Tamil Nadu Department Vehicles Control Rules 1976 tosettle claims, if any, by the Government be allowed tocontinue. 3. In order to enforce strict discipline among thedrivers of Government Vehicles, Government haveexamined the question of recovering token amount fromthe drivers in cases of accidents to GovernmentVehicles. Government consider that under the provisionsof rule 8(V)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA)Rules, when any pecuniary loss is caused to Governmentby the negligence of the Government Servants, recoveryfrom their pay of the whole or part of such pecuniaryloss may be made by way of penalty. In thesecircumstances, Government, consider that there is noneed for making separate rules for effecting tokenrecovery from the drivers in case Government vehiclesget involved in accidents." 12. In view of the averments made by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents, and on aperusal of the records available, this court is of the consideredview that the impugned proceedings of the third respondent, dated26.12.2000, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Having takenthe stand before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur,in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.315 of 1995, that the respondent Department is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not responsible, in any way, for the accident that had occurred,on 23.5.1994, it would not be open to the respondents to holdthat the petitioner is responsible for the loss that had occurreddue to the payment of compensation to the claimant, Saraswathy.Further, it cannot be said that the accident had occurred due tothe negligence of the petitioner or that he was directlyresponsible for the accident. Since the petitioner was not aparty to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal, Ariyalur, he cannot be held liable, without a properopportunity having been given to him. 13. In such view of the matter, the impugned proceedings ofthe third respondent cannot be held to be valid in the eye oflaw. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. LanSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Chief Engineer Agricultural Engineering Department Chennai-352. The Superintendent Engineer Agricultural Engineering Department Salem3. The Assistant Executive Engineer Agricultural Engineering Department Peraumbalur + 1 cc to Mr. Ravi, Advocate SR No.36413+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.36867Writ Petition No.34959 of 2006 (T)O.A.No.628 of 2001CKN(CO)SR/31.8.2009