A.Sekar vs The Superintendent Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 12069 Mad

                                                                                       W.P.No.18187 of 2008


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED : 21.06.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

                                                   W.P.No.18187 of 2008
                                                   and M.P.No.1 of 2008

                     A.Sekar                                                      ... Petitioner
                                                                Vs.


                     The Superintendent of Police,
                     Perambalur District,
                     Perambalur.                                                 ... Respondent


                     PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
                     Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
                     records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in his Proceedings
                     Na.Ka.No.C2/13816/2002, Pa.Aa.No.393/2008, dated 29.04.2008 and quash
                     the same.


                                      For Petitioner            : Mr.S.Mani

                                      For Respondent            : Mr.C.Selvaraj
                                                                  Government Advocate (Civil)

                                                             -----


                     1 of 6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                             W.P.No.18187 of 2008




                                                             ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a

Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by

the respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.C2/13816/2002,

Pa.Aa.No.393/2008, dated 29.04.2008, and quash the same.

2. The petitioner, while working as Police Constable Grade-I,

was asked to drive a vehicle belonging to the Police Department on

02.07.2003, which met with an accident, wherein a two wheeler rider

succumbed to the accident. For the said incident, departmental proceedings

were initiated on 28.11.2003 and ended in punishment of stoppage of

increment for three years with cumulative effect from the date of the order

i.e. on 13.01.2004.

3. Later, a criminal case was also initiated against the petitioner

under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. and he was tried in Crime No.317 of 2003 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur. The criminal Court has held

2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18187 of 2008

that the charges were not proved and acquitted the petitioner from the

criminal case.

4. In the meanwhile, on appeal filed by the petitioner, the

punishment of stoppage of increment was set aside by the Director General

of Police on 13.08.2007. After this, the respondents issued a show cause

notice dated 25.01.2008 calling upon the petitioner as to why 5% of the

award of compensation should not be recovered from the salary on the

ground that the Government suffered loss through a compensation awarded

in favour of the two wheeler rider in the motor accident claim and the

petitioner submitted his explanation. However, by way of the impugned

order dated 29.04.2008, a sum of Rs.17,681/- was directed to be recovered

in 39 installments at the rate of Rs.442/- per month, which is under

challenge in the present Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the

judgment of the Hon'ble First Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.11002 of 1999 dated 07.07.1999 wherein, the Hon'ble Division

3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18187 of 2008

Bench has categorically held that the claim made by the respondents is

wholly unsustainable as the Government was in the capacity of employer,

who are duty bound to pay compensation payable to the victim and the order

of recovery is misconceived. The same view has been followed by the

learned single Judge in W.P.No.27962 of 2005, dated 13.04.2006 and in

various other judgments of this Court.

6. In this case also, the respondents are vicariously liable to pay

the compensation to the motor accident victim. The petitioner had driven

the vehicle in his official capacity. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the

compensation to the victim, whereas, as held by the Hon'ble Division

Bench, the employers are liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the

impugned order of recovery passed by the respondent in

Na.Ka.No.C2/13816/2002, Pa.Aa.No.393/2008, dated 29.04.2008, is not

sustainable in law and accordingly, the same is set aside.

4 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18187 of 2008

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

21.06.2021

asi

To

The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

5 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18187 of 2008

M. GOVINDARAJ, J.

asi

W.P.No.18187 of 2008 and W.P.No.1 of 2008

21.06.2021

6 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/