Mangal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.9.1992 (Annexure P-4), whereby respondent No. 3 ordered the recovery @ Rs. 1000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice or conducting any enquiry. Brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition, are that while petitioner was serving as Driver with the respondent-department, a road accident took place in which the car being driven by the petitioner was found to be involved. F.I.R. No. 91 dated 25.6.1989 was registered under Sections 279/427/304-A IPC, at Police Station, Kharar, District Ropar. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar, which was allowed vide award dated 25.3.1992 (Annexure P-2) awarding an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of the death of Shri Satpal Singh. Pursuant to the above-said award passed by learned M.A.C.T. Ropar, impugned order dated 4.9.1992 (Annexure P-4) came to be passed by respondent No. 3 directing that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of the petitioner every month. Petitioner approached the respondent authorities by way of representation dated 17.9.1992 (Annexure P-5), but no action thereon was taken. Hence, this writ petition.

While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 14.10.1992, a Division Bench of this Court stayed recovery till further orders. Since no reply was filed on behalf of respondents, writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 10.2.1993. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

When the case was taken up for regular hearing today, no reply was found available in the record of the case. However, a copy of the written statement dated 17.3.1993, supplied by the learned counsel for the State in the Court today, has been permitted to be placed on record. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the award passed by the learned M.A.C.T., vide Annexure P-2, coupled with the advice issued by the Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to Government of Punjab, vide communication dated 30.6.1992 (Annexure P-3) no further enquiry was required to be conducted. Under such circumstances, respondent No. 3 was justified in passing the impugned order dated 4.9.1992 (Annexure P-4). He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the State at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

A bare reading of the impugned order would show that it is just non-speaking and cryptic one. No reason, whatsoever, has been assigned much less cogent reasons thereof while passing the impugned order. The impugned order dated 4.9.1992 reads as under: -

In view of letter No. 2408 B/C.O.23(35) 90, dated 30.6.1992, of the Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Law Department, Chandigarh, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- is ordered to be deducted every month from the pay of Shri Mangal Singh Driver.

While tendering its opinion, Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to Government of Punjab, vide memo dated 30.6.1992 (Annexure P-3) opined as under:--

In this case the amount of compensation is to be paid by the Punjab Government due to the negligence of Car Driver. As such this amount can be recovered from him under Rule 5(iii) after following the procedure of Rule 10 of the C.S.R. (P & A) Rules, 1970.

Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-1, Part-11, provides the penalties to be awarded to an employee, whereas Rule 10 provides procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rules 5 and 10 read as under:--

(5) Penalties:- Following penalties may for good and as hereinafter, be imposed on a Government employee namely:- (i) censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion; (iii) Recovery form his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or branch of orders; (iv) withholding increment of pay.

Procedure for imposing minor penalties.--(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4-A) of rule 8 sub-rule 3 of rule 9, no order imposing on a Government employee any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) and (iv) of rule 5 shall be made except after:--

(a) informing the Government employee in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;

(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 8, in every case in which the punishing authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;

(c) taking the representation, if any submitted by the Government employee under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration:

(d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and

(e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary.

(2) The record of the proceeding in such cases shall include-

(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government employee of the proposal to take action against him;

(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;

(iii) his representation, if any;

(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry.

(v) the advice of the commission, if any;

(vi) the findings of the punishing authority and also the report of the inquiring authority in case an inquiry has been held under clause (b) of sub-rule (1); and*

*[Substituted vide Notification No. G.S.R.4/Const./Art, 187.309 and 318 And (2)/85 dated 9.1.1985]

(vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefore.

In spite of the fact that the Legal Remembrancer, Punjab, tendered his opinion that the amount can be recovered from the petitioner under Rule 5(iii) after following the procedure provided under Rule 10 reproduced above, admittedly, no such procedure was followed. It has gone undisputed on record that neither any show-cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner. After passing the impugned order, petitioner represented to the respondent authorities vide his representation dated 17.9.1992 (Annexure P-5) but no action thereon was taken. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that respondent No. 3 has glaringly violated the above-said provisions of law, while passing the impugned order and the same cannot be sustained.

Relying upon the above-said Rule 10, petitioner took specific averment in para 9 of the writ petition, which reads as under:--

That on 4.9.1992, without any notice to the petitioner and without following the procedure laid down under Rule 10 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part II, Respondent No. 3 wrongly and illegally passed an order for the deduction of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. A true copy of the order is attached herewith as Annexure P-4.

Respondents have failed to deny the above-said averment taken by the petitioner in the corresponding para 9 of the written statement. In fact, the stand taken by the respondents in their written statement is also as cryptic as the impugned order. Para 9 of the written statement reads as under:--

That the order of recovery Annexure P-4 is quite justified as the M.A.C.T. Ropar held that the accident took place due to rash and negligence driving by Sh. Mangal Singh, Driver. Moreover, Mangal Singh petitioner has not produced any evidence before the M.A.C.T. Ropar in support of his contention that mere was no negligence on his part.

It is the settled proposition of law that whenever any order passed by the executive authority entails the civil consequences, the order must be just and reasonable. The administrative authorities are under legal obligation to ensure the meticulous compliance of the basic principles of natural justice. In the present case, an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Neither any enquiry was conducted nor any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned award. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned order has been passed proceeding on an arbitrary approach and the same cannot be sustained.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned order dated 4.9.1992 (Annexure P-4) was patently illegal, the same is hereby ordered to be set aside. However, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed, however with no order as to costs.