BALJIT SINGH Vs. U T ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Shri Baljit Singh has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, against the order dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure A-6) whereby a sum of Rs. 73,259 has been ordered to be recovered from him.

(2.) Pleads that on the intervening night of 31.5.89/1.6.89, when the applicant was working as S.D.O. Electricity (Operation), an accident took place with the official DCM Toyota vehicle, which was driven by Shri Sewa Singh, a mate, and in the said accident, one Mahabir died and Satish Kumar sustained various injuries. Pleads that the legal heirs of Mahabir and Satish Kumar filed claim petitions before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short MACT) and the learned MACT by its order dated 6.9.90 (Annexure A-2) granted compensation of Rs. 1,53,6000 to the wards of deceased Mahabir and Rs. 35,000 to Satish Kumar along with 12% interest and Counsel fee of Rs. 5000 assessed in each case and the total amount comes to Rs. 2,19,776. Pleads that as per letter dated 22.1.91 (Annexure A-l) received from the Legal Remembrancer-cum-Director Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, to the effect that it is not a fit case to file appeal before the higher authority, the applicant while working as S.D.O. approached the Executive Engineer as well as Chief Engineer, U.T. Chandigarh, for allocating a sum of Rs. 2,19,776 for making payment to the claimants. Pleads that respondent No. 1 by its letter dated 13.9.95 (Annexure A-3) referred the matter to Finance Secretary for making payment in public interest to avoid further accumulation of interest on compensation amount and the said amount was disbursed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Construction Division.

(3.) PLEADS that on receipt of the representation of the applicant, the Chief Engineer, U.T. Chandigarh, appointed Executive Engineer, Operations Electricity as an Inquiry Officer by order dated 23.4.2004 (Annexure P-5) and the said Inquiry Officer completed the enquiry. Claims that though the enquiry report has not been supplied to him, though, he came to know that the said Inquiry Officer recommended that the applicant is not at all responsible for the said accident and the department may make the payment. PLEADS that as per letter dated 11.4.2005 written by the Chief Engineer, U.T. Chandigarh, to Superintending Engineer, Elect. OP Circle, U.T. Chandigarh, wherein it is stated that on the basis of advice received from the Finance Secretary that "since Er. Baljit Singh, AEE (Retd) has not challenged the judgment of MACT directing the payment of compensation on jointly and severally basis and as such, the amount already placed in the miscellaneous advances of the officer may be cleared by charging the same to the amount of gratuity already with-held under intimation to this office" and thereafter a sum of Rs. 73,259 out of his D.C.R.G. amount has been withheld by the respondents. Against the said action of the respondents, the applicant again made a representation dated 10.5.2005 that the recovery of Rs. 73,259 has since been affected from Shri Sewa Singh, driver in monthly instalments since 1991 and he was never informed nor he was given any opportunity before deducting the amount till his retirement.