IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.12.2009
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NO.2762 OF 2007
S.Adhinarayanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented
by the Secretary to Government
Revenue Department
Fort St.George, Madras 600 009.
2. The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner for Revenue Administration
Chepauk, Madras - 600 005.
3. The Collector
Virudhunagar.
4. The Deputy Collector
District Backward Class Welfare Office
Theni ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.1599 of 2001, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining recovery in G.O.Ms.297 dated 11.06.1999 and Na.Ka.44191/99 j2 dated 19.11.1999 on the file of the District Backward Class and minority office, Theni and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Ms.A.Shanmugapriya
For Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya
Additional Govt. Pleader
O R D E R
The Original Application in O.A.No.1599 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was working as Car Driver in District Backward Class and Minority Welfare Office, Theni. On 14.09.1994, Car No. TMG 9769, which he drove, met with an accident at Rajapalayam Town. Due to the accident, one pedestrian Mr.M.Neerathalingam sustained injuries. He filed an application in M.A.C.O.P.No.297 of 1995 before the Sub Court (Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Srivilliputhur, under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/- with 12% interest per annum to the injured. Against the said award, the Collector, Virudhunagar, the third respondent herein, filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.514 of 1999 before this Court. While granting stay, this Court imposed a condition that the entire amount should be deposited within eight weeks from the date of the said order. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.81,220/- was deposited. While sanctioning a sum of Rs.81,220/- by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.297, Revenue (RA.2(2) Department, dated 11.06.1999, it is stated that action should be taken to recover the amount from the driver, besides taking disciplinary action. Thereafter, the fourth respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.11.1999 directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.81,220/- forthwith.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Original Application in O.A.No.1599 of 2001 (W.P.No.2762 of 2007).
4. The respondents filed reply affidavit, refuting the allegations contained in the writ petition.
5. Heard Ms.A.Shanmugapriya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while seeking stay of the order of the Tribunal, the District Collector, the third respondent herein, filed an affidavit in C.M.P.No.6192 of 1999 in C.M.A.No.514 of 1999 stating that the petitioner was not at fault. Having stated so, the impugned order of recovery should not have been passed. In this regard, para 2 of the said affidavit is extracted here-under:-
“The learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the claimant without considering the fact that the claimant suddenly crossed to road and hence he is solely responsible for the accident. Moreover, the Tribunal erroneously awarded the amount even though the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple injuries.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the Original Application, an interim order was passed for payment of Rs.10,000/- by way of recovery from the petitioner’s salary at the rate of Rs.100/- per month.
8. Though the prayer in the writ petition is to quash the G.O.Ms.No.297 Revenue [RA.2(2)] Department dated 11.06.1999, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument for quashing the impugned order dated 19.11.1999. According to the learned counsel, while the Government directed the authorities to recover the amount from the Driver, the same should be done after following the procedures established in law. It is submitted that without hearing the petitioner, the fourth respondent could not pass the impugned order straight away. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal to the victim. In any event, it is reiterated that the Collector, the third respondent herein, came to the conclusion that the accident was only due to the pedestrian and therefore, there was no justification in passing the impugned order.
9. The impugned order results in serious civil consequences. It has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BHAGVAN SHUKLA VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1994 (6) SCC 154 that no order could be passed by an authority against any one resulting in civil consequences without hearing the concerned person. The relevant para from the said judgment is extracted here-under:
“3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner’s basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs.190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs.181 p.m. from Rs.190 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the other came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.07.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.09.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.07.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs.190 to Rs.181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970.”
10. In such circumstances, the impugned order, passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is quashed. Since the impugned order is quashed, the second and fourth respondents are directed to repay the amount Rs.10,000/- which is said to have been recovered from the petitioner, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
rns
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department
Fort St.George
Madras 600 009
2. The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner for Revenue Administration
Chepauk
Madras 600 005
3. The Collector
Virudhunagar
4. The Deputy Collector
District Backward Class Welfare Office
Theni