Prabhat Singh vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation And Another

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner is aggrieved against recovery of an amount of Rs.27,850/- effected from his salary by the respondents and therefore, he has filed the instant petition for the following substantive reliefs:-

"i) That the action of the respondents in effecting the recovery of amount of Rs.27,500/- from the salary of the applicant be quashed and set aside in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount so recovered from the salary of the applicant with interest.

iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to take suitable action against the erring official(s) who issued/recovered the amount of Rs.27,500/- from the salary of the applicant despite knowing that the Respondent No.2 had let off the applicant by issuing warning with the direction to be careful in future."

Facts as emerged from the pleadings are that:-

2(i). The petitioner was working as Driver with the respondents-HRTC. On 05.02.2016, he had gone to fill diesel in Bus No.HP-36-5172. While this bus driven by him was stationed at Dehra Petrol/Diesel Pump, another HRTC Bus bearing No.HP-12G-4647 also arrived there for filling diesel from the same petrol pump. The second bus was statedly stationed immediately behind the bus driven by the petitioner. Gap between the two buses was very narrow. After filling diesel in his bus, petitioner started the same. In the process, Bus No.HP-36-5172 touched the other bus bearing No.HP-12G-4647 and damaged its front glass.

2(ii). A notice was issued by the respondents to the petitioner on 15.02.2016 (Annexure A-1) in respect of the above-mentioned incident. The petitioner was called upon as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him in respect of his alleged carelessness. Petitioner submitted his response on 14.10.2016 (Annexure A-2), denying any negligence on his part. The version of the petitioner was that the driver of Vehicle No.HP-12G-4647, was to be blamed for not maintaining adequate distance from the vehicle driven by the petitioner. After perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner, the competent authority/respondent No.2 issued an office order on 18.11.2016 (Annexure A-3), thereby letting off the petitioner with 'Warning'. The petitioner was directed to be careful in future. The relevant part of the office order reads as under:-

"Keeping in view the whole aspects pertaining to the aforesaid explanation & the reply submitted by the said Sh. Parbhat Singh, Driver, the undersigned hereby 'WARN' the said driver with the directions to be careful in future."

2(iii). Subsequent thereto, from the salary of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.27,850/- was recovered by the respondents. Petitioner had no clue about reason for this deduction. However, information later obtained by him under RTI Act [Annexure A-4 (Colly.)] revealed that this deduction was on account of repair of Vehicle No.HP-12G-4647 carried out by the respondents from a private workshop.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that after closing the matter with issuance of simple 'warning', it was not open for the respondents to deduct the amount in question from the salary of the petitioner. No notice whatsoever had ever been issued to the petitioner in respect of deducting any amount from his salary. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in any case it was not the petitioner, who was negligent in performance of his duties, rather negligence was on part of the Driver of Bus No.HP-12G-4647, who had parked the vehicle behind the vehicle driven by the petitioner without maintaining reasonable distance.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly admitted the factual position that after perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice, he had been let off by the respondents with simple 'warning' with a further direction to be careful in future. He has also admitted that no notice in respect of recovery of any amount from the salary of the petitioner had ever been issued by the respondents to the petitioner.

In view of the admitted factual position where the petitioner had been let off by the respondents with simple 'warning' with further direction to be careful in future, there was no occasion for the respondents to have effected any recoveries from the salary of the petitioner on account of his alleged negligence. The petitioner had neither admitted any negligence nor any negligence was established from the record. Disciplinary proceedings were not initiated. No notice had been issued to the petitioner in respect of recovery of any amount from his salary whatsoever. For all these reasons, recovery of the amount in question from the salary of the petitioner is not justified. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs.27,850/ - alongwith interest @ 5% per annum from the date of recovery of amount till its refund, within a period of two months from today. In case entire amount is not released within the above stipulated period, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.