Madras High Court
N.Narendrapandian vs The Director Of Rural Development & ... on 9 August, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD)No.27759 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.27759 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.23870 to 23872 of 2023 & 578 of 2024
N.Narendrapandian ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat aj,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Panagalmaligai, Saidapet,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3.The Commissioner,
Shenkottai Panchayat Union,
Shenkottai,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order of recovery passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.
67137/2022/G1 dated 16.09.2023 and consequential order passed by the 2nd
respondent in Na.Ka.No.COLRD/705/2022-N9 dated 26.09.2023 and the 3rd
respondent in Na.Ka.No.BDOSCT/97/2023/A1 dated 25.10.2023 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount recovered
from the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.(MD)No.27759 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vignesh
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
* * * * *.
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by a Jeep driver of the third
respondent Panchayat Union, challenging an order of recovery from his salary
and from his Death Cum Retirement Gratuity(DCRG) amount on the ground
that due to negligence of the petitioner, the jeep was involved in an accident,
resulting in payment of compensation by the Government.
2.When the writ petitioner was working as a driver under the third
respondent office, the jeep met with an accident on 04.08.2015. The victim had
filed M.C.O.P.No.38 of 2016 seeking compensation before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Tenkasi. By award dated 25.02.2020, a
compensation of Rs.14,04,960/- was awarded. The transport corporation has
challenged the said award in C.M.A.(MD)No.418 of 2020 before this Court and
the same was dismissed on 28.03.2023.
3.The first respondent herein by proceedings dated 16.09.2023 had
directed the second respondent to collect the entire compensation amount from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the writ petitioner. The second respondent has passed an order on 26.09.2023
directing the third respondent to recover the said amount from the salary as well
as the gratuity of the writ petitioner. The third respondent has passed a
consequential order on 25.10.2023, directing recovery of Rs.8,40,000/- from the
salary of the writ petitioner in 56 installments and the balance amount should be
recovered from the gratuity of the writ petitioner. Challenging these three
orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
4.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the
Management had defended the driver before the Motor Accident claims
proceedings and therefore, after the passing of the award, they are not entitled
to mulct the liability upon the writ petitioner. He had further relied upon the
Hon'ble Division Bench Judgment of our High Court of Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam Dn-II) Ltd. Vs. P.Karuppusamy
reported in 2008 (3) Law Weekly 90 and would content that the transport
corporation cannot take a different stand after losing the award proceedings.
5.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied
upon the Full Bench Judgment of our High Court of V.Syril Sundararaj Vs.
The Presiding officer, Labour Court, Thirunelveli & Ors. reported in 2024 (2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CTC 465 would content that merely because the driver was defended by the
State before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, that will not preclude the
State from initiating disciplinary proceedings as against the driver. He had
further relied upon the G.O.Ms.No.393, Home, (PR-4) dated 01.03.1988 and
would content that the recovery is permissible under law as per the said
Government letter.
6.I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
7.In view of the Full Bench Judgment of our High Court of V.Syril
Sundararaj Vs. The Presiding officer, Labour Court, Thirunelveli & Ors.
reported in 2024 (2) CTC 465, it is clear that the Management is not precluded
from initiating disciplinary proceedings as against the driver. However, before
the order of recovery from his salary or from the gratuity amount is passed,
unless the petitioner is put on notice, the said order cannot be held to be legally
valid.
8.In view of the above said facts, the impugned order in the writ petition
is hereby set aside and the respondents are at liberty to initiate the proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
after issuing proper notice to the writ petitioner. The enquiry shall be completed
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Till completion of enquiry, the further deduction from the monthly salary shall
be kept in abeyance.
9.With the above said observations, this writ petition stands allowed to
the extent as stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
09.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
RJR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat aj,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Panagalmaligai, Saidapet,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3.The Commissioner,
Shenkottai Panchayat Union,
Shenkottai,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.23870 to 23872
of 2023 & 578 of 2024
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
