Surinder Singh vs Union Territory

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd October, 2003 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (in short, the Tribunal'') whereby his Original Application against the recovery order of Rs. 1,00,000/-, has been dismissed. The facts are not in dispute The petitioner was a Driver in the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking He caused an accident for which FIR under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered as it was a case of injury The injured filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the petitioner was required to depose as a departmental witness The petitioner deliberately did not appear as a witness despite orders passed by the higher authorities resulting into award of Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation to the injured-claimant Petitioner was charge sheeted and a regular inquiry was ordered The Inquiry Officer though did not hold the petitioner guilty but disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority held that the petitioner did not appear despite written orders issued by the competent authority which were duty noted by him Consequently, the punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- in 48 installments, besides warning and payment of only the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, were imposed The petitioner preferred departmental appeal etc but the said punishment was maintained.

Still aggrieved, the petitioner went to Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (Tribunal) who rejected his challenge, giving rise to this writ petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

It is vehemently urged that once the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, the findings ought not to have been lightly brushed aside by the disciplinary authority It is also contended that the petitioner, who has since retired from service, has been subjected to a very harsh punishment disproportionate to the nature of charges proved against him

On giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions, we are of the view that no interference in the impugned order is called for It appears to be a case of quid pro quo where the petitioner, despite directions issued by superiors, did not appear as a witness against the claimant in the MACT case and the claimant did not depose against the petitioner in the criminal case.

The fact that accident took place when the petitioner was driving the bus, is not in dispute. Similarly, the injured claimant was successful before the MACT is also an admitted fact It thus stands established beyond any doubt that the petitioner caused loss to the State exchequer to the extent of payment of compensation to the claimant. The finding returned by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner had no notice to appear before the MACT, has been elaborately dealt with by the disciplinary authority, who has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the directions issued to him to appear as a departmental witness in the MACT case.

Keeping in view the fact that the claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- besides interest etc. the imposition of punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- and that too in 48 installments, cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate to the nature of charges proved against the petitioner. In view of the above, no case is made out to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. The instant writ petition is dismissed accordingly.