Head Constable Gurmit Singh No.27/574, Office of the Inspector General of Police (Vigilance and Security), PSEB, Patiala vs The State of Punjab and others

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petition is at the instance of a Police Constable, who was a Driver for vehicle belonging to the State. He was driving vehicle No.PNS-3900 with the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) who was sitting in the car. The car met with an accident involving a motor vehicle coming from the opposite side. The motorcylist had been injured and he had filed a case for claiming compensation before the MACT, Chandigarh. The Tribunal passed an award for Rs.60,000/-finding the driver of the police vehicle as negligent and responsible for causing the accident. At the time when the writ petition was filed, an appeal appears to have been filed for enhancement of compensation by the injured motor-cyclist and a cross-appeal had been filed by the Government and the petitioner, questioning the compensation awarded and the finding that the petitioner was guilty of negligent driving. When the proceedings were pending, the petitioner had been served with a copy of notice seeking for recovery of the amount of Rs.60,000/-that had been awarded against the Government. The petitioner''s contention is that such a recovery is impermissible for the accident had taken place during the course of his duty and he was not himself responsible for the accident.

Learned counsel for the State contends that the conditions of service of the petitioner are governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Rule 5(iii) that provides for minor penalties referred to "recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders." The contention, therefore, is that the petition filed for challenging the issuance of notice is impermissible.

Rule 10 prescribes a procedure of imposition of minor penalties. Sub-clause (a) of Clause 1 provides that no order imposing a penalty could be made except after informing the Government employee in writing of the proposal of taking action against him and the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving a reasonable opportunity of making a reasonable representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. This is the benefit which the petitioner would be entitled to. The impugned notice does not contain any reference to an order for recovery. It merely states that he may be made liable for making good the loss. The impugned order states that an appeal could be filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction and that the amount of Rs.60,000/-could be recovered from him. Actually no order of recovery had been made and there was no scope for filing a writ petition at all. However, if the notice were to be treated as causing a reasonable apprehension for the petitioner that the recovery would have been made pursuant to the same, the respondents are directed that no recovery be made without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 10. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.