A single-judge bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, BILASPUR on 01.02.2019 in NARAYAN MARSKOLE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ORS. (WP(S) 5075 of 2009) set aside the impugned judgement. The bench was headed by Chief Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi.

FACTS:

Petitioner was working as a driver though holding a rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the 2nd Battalion of Chhattisgarh Armed Forces at Bilaspur. A Swaraj Mazda vehicle was under his assignment. While driving the said vehicle sometime in January the engine ceased which required extensive repair and expenses. Based on an enquiry, the authorities decided to recover the expenses met in the repair of the vehicle from the salary of the Petitioner and it is the said decision that was being assailed.

ISSUES:

·       Validity of the impugned order?

·       Whether the petitioner was liable for the problem in the vehicle?

CONTENTIONS:

By petitioners:

• That such a punishment had civil consequences because of the money recovery from the salary of the Petitioner; there should have been a proper enquiry before a punishment of such kind.
• That the decision had been taken on the basis of fact finding report conducted by one Shri K. S. Choudhary and was submitted before the D.I.G. Bhilai range which formed the basis of passing the order in question.
• That order should be set aside.

Respondents:

• That the finding of negligence on part of the Petitioner had emerged in the enquiry.
• That such decision was taken based on such findings only.

OBSERVATIONS:

The court observed that:-

• It was unfair to put the entire responsibility of negligence on the Petitioner and to order to recovery from the salary.
• Evidence has come that the vehicle’s engine was repaired earlier in open market. In fact when the engine ceased while being driven by the Petitioner, certain internal parts were found to be missing when the engine was dismantled for repair.
• Petitioner’s detailed explanation offered to the concerned authority was brushed aside with the object of protecting the previous driver as well as wrong doing of the authorities who got the vehicle repaired in the open market and not in the workshop and facilities available for forces.
• Since no regular departmental proceeding was held, any recovery of money from the salary of Petitioner had civil consequence.
• The order cannot be sustained.
• The fact finding enquiry cannot be used as a basis for imposing such punishment.

HELD:

The court allowed the writ application setting aside the impugned order and asked the authorities to refund the money if any recovery had been made from the Petitioner within 03 months of the production of a copy of the order.

For full judgement refer:

[embeddoc url=”http://cg.nic.in/hcbspjudgement/judgements_web/WP(S)5075_09(01.02.19).pdf” download=”all”]