Allahabad High Court
Mahant Ram Yadav vs Regional Manager, U.P. Parivahan ... on 8 July, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22820 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mahant Ram Yadav
Respondent :- Regional Manager, U.P. Parivahan Nigam Faizabad And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Raj Singh,Mukesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kudesia
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. In view of COVID-19 pandemic, this case is being heard through video conferencing.
2. Heard Sri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 31.07.2017 and 18.05.2018, whereby recovery of Rs.3,40,827/- has been directed against the petitioner.
4. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was working as driver of Bus No.UP42AT 5448 in UPSRTC6, which met with an accident, wherein a person, who was riding motorcycle died and one person got injured and the bus was kept in police custody. In pursuance thereof, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner calling explanation on certain charges and reply to the same was submitted by the petitioner denying the allegations levelled therein. The inquiry officer after inquiring into the matter submitted a report that due to police custody of the bus, a loss of Rs.3,40,827/- has been caused to UPSRTC and recommendation was made to take necessary action. The disciplinary authority after due consideration of the matter directed the aforesaid recovery from the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, a deduction of Rs.55000/- has already been made from salary of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority in its order has held that the petitioner is not responsible for the accident and has exonerated him from the charges but due to police custody of the bus, the loss occurred has been imposed upon the petitioner, which is not permissible under the regulations applicable to the employees of UPSRTC.
6. He next submitted that in pursuance to an award passed in the claim petition the petitioner has been held guilty and liable for 80% of loss occurred to the respondent -department, however, the said amount was not subject matter of charge sheet issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that for release of the bus from court proceedings, the petitioner cannot be liable. It is the corporation, on whose lapses, the bus could not be released from police custody within reasonable time and just to hide their own liability, the respondents have fixed the liability upon the petitioner, therefore, the loss occurred is payable by the respondent - corporation.
7. He further submitted that before passing the impugned order, no notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order being passed in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent - corporation submitted that in the claim petition, the petitioner has been held to be guilty for accident and has been directed for recovery of amount of 80% recovery from the petitioner. He next submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the award passed in claim petition, therefore, the recovery initiated against him is just and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
9. His further submission is that the recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioner is in consonance with provisions of regulations applicable to the employees of respondent - corporation, therefore, no interference is required in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. It is admitted case of the parties that the bus driven by the petitioner met with an accident and was kept in police custody for certain period. It has also been admitted that the award passed in the claim petition has not been challenged by the petitioner before competent forum. The petitioner has been released on bail on the next date of accident i.e. 12.12.2015, however, the vehicle could not be released from police custody.
12. It is also apparent on perusal of material on record that the inquiry officer - respondent No.2 submitted the inquiry report on 19.05.2017 and the petitioner has been released on bail on 12.12.2015. Once, in the charge sheet the recovery made on the basis of judgment passed in the claim petitions was not subject matter of inquiry and in case the department is proceeding to make recovery on the said basis, the petitioner would have been provided opportunity of hearing to file his defence.
13. In regard to submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that recovery against the petitioner is proceeding on the basis of award passed in the claim petition, on examination of material on record, it is evident that in the charge sheet, the disciplinary authority has not recorded its satisfaction that recovery is proceeding in lieu of award passed in the claim petition, therefore, the submission advanced has no substance.
14. On perusal of impugned order, it is reflected that the recovery proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of inquiry concluded after issuance of charge sheet and the basis has been made that due to lapses that the bus could not be released from police custody within reasonable period.
15. In the opinion of this Court, once the charge was not in the charge sheet nor before the inquiry officer, on the basis of judgment of claim petition, the recovery would not have been made against the petitioner.
16. On overall consideration of material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
18. The impugned orders dated 31.07.2017 and 18.05.2018 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the amount recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to impugned order dated 31.07.2017 forthwith.
Order Date :- 8.7.2021
Adarsh K Singh
