Madras High Court
K.Sakthivel vs The Commandant on 27 September, 2024
W.P.No.38589 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.38589 of 2015 and
W.M.P.Nos.15763 and 31303 of 2016 and
M.P.No.2 of 2015
K.Sakthivel ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commandant
TSP X Battalion
Ulundurpet, Villupuram District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of
the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in
Na.Ka.No. C2/8848/2013 B.O.No.241/2014 dated 04.06.2014 and by the 2 nd
respondent in Na.Ka.No. L1/18333/2014 D.O.No.699/2014 dated
04.07.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reimburse the
recovered amount to the petitioner within a reasonable time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.38589 of 2015
For Petitioner : M/S.K.Venkataramani,
Senior Counsel.
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the recovery order
dated 04.06.2014 passed against the petitioner.
2. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
petitioner was the Police Head Constable attached to the Panruti Police
Station, Cuddalore District. It is stated that while he was driving the official
vehicle, it involved in an accident. Subsequently the same resulted in filing of
M.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2002, wherein, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chennai directed the Government to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,069/-. The
Government satisfies the award, however, this amount was ordered to be
recovered from the petitioner, as a debt to the Government. The learned
Senior counsel would contend that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior
to passing of such an order, therefore contended that the recovery order is
liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would vehemently
content that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the
petitioner and the same was resulting in a loss of Rs. 1,81,069/- to the Court
by satisfying the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Therefore,
the recovery order issued against the petitioner is liable to be sustainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
5. The sum and substance of the learned Senior counsel's contention is
that before issuance of the recovery order, no notice was issued. In this
regard, as evident from counter statement, there are no reference as to the
issuance of any prior notice. Therefore, on the face of it, the demand against
the petitioner to pay a substantial sum of Rs. 1,81,069/- is absolutely illegal.
Furthermore, the learned Senior counsel would contend that having pleaded
in the M.C.O.P that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the
petitioner, the respondents are estopped to issue such recovery notice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Annadurai v.
The Chief Engineer in W.P.No.34959 of 2006, dated 06.08.2009, wherein,
this Court has elaborately examined Section 94(2) of Motor Vehicle Act and
the policy decision of the Government in not covering the Government
Vehicles by the insurance policies against the third-party risk. After
contending the above aspect, this Court observed that even if there is any
negligence on the part of the drivers, then the recovery of token amount alone
is permissible, under Section 8(V)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(CCA) Rules, if any pecuniary loss caused by the negligence of the
Government Servants. In the present case, though the Government has stated
that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner, there is no proof
available to substantiate the alleged negligence of the petitioner or as a matter
of fact no disciplinary proceeding initiated for the alleged negligence of the
petitioner and its concomitant loss to the government.
7. In view of the peculiar circumstances viz., non-issuance of notice,
and on account of the absence of foundational facts as to the negligence on
the part of the petitioner, this Court does not find any merit in the issuance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the impugned recovery order. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st
respondent is liable to be quashed.
8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
shk
To:
1.The Commandant
TSP X Battalion
Ulundurpet, Villupuram District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
shk
W.P.No.38589 of 2015 and
W.M.P.Nos.15763 and 31303 of 2016 and
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
