- (1.)BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that the petitioner has been subjected to arbitrary and illegal recovery at the rate of Rs.1,000/ -per month from the salary without issuing any show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing.
(2.)TO address upon the issue raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to certain material facts to the effect that the petitioner is an employee of the Municipal Council, Sabalgarh, District Morena working as driver, Fire Brigade vehicle No.MP06A/2985. The aforesaid vehicle with the mutual understanding of the respondents No. 1 and 2 was kept in supardagi at the office of respondent No.2. On receiving complaint for extinguishing fire or any other causalities, Fire brigade was directed to attend casualties. Movements of the Fire brigade are duly entered in the Rojnamcha. On fateful day, i.e., on 15.4.2014, there was a report as regards huge fire in the village Jarena as a result the petitioner was directed to proceed to extinguish the fire. On the way, in -between, Police Station Joura and Police Station, Kailaras on the Morena Sabalgarh road near Sankara Ki Tiwariya, a lady by name Manisha has suddenly and hurriedly tried to cross -over the road and in the process, she dashed against the Fire Brigade vehicle and died during her treatment. The vehicle was parked at the Police Station, Joura. The report of the incident was lodged in the presence of husband of Manisha. Thereafter, a criminal was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 128/2004, however, he has been acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Joura District Morena vide the judgment dated 26.9.2007 On account of the death of Manisha, her family members have filed a claim case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena vide claim Case No.205/2004 and the Tribunal has passed an award dated 21.12.2005 saddling the liability upon the respondent State and the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sabalgarh jointly and severally to the tune of Rs.1,79,000/ -. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent No.1 to make good the liability to the extent of 1/3rd share amounting to Rs.69 966/ -. The petitioner filed reply and denied the same. However, from the month of Month, 2009, the respondent No. 1 started making recovery of Rs. 1,000/ - per month from the salary of petitioner.
(3.)THIS Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed an interim order on 22.9.2009 staying the recovery of amount from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition, i.e., as to whether the driver of Government vehicle during the course of employment can be held liable for payment of compensation to the successors and heirs of a deceased in the accident stands settled. In this context, referred to an order passed by a coordinate Bench dated 29.6.2015 while disposing of two writ petitions; leading case being Writ Petition No.9073/2013 (Dal Chand Sharma v. State of MP and others), [2015(III) MPWN 9] and seeks parity of treatment.