High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors - RSA-164-2005  RD-P&H 795 (15 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 164 of 2005
Date of Decision: January 31, 2006
State of Punjab and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. I.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kohli, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sushant Maini, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondents.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The plaintiff has concurrently lost before the two Courts below. He challenged the order dated June 9, 1999 whereby this two annual grade increments were ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect. He also challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the authorities against him. The aforesaid recovery was sought to be made from the plaintiff on account of the loss caused by him to the Department.
The facts which emerge from record show that the plaintiff was working as a Driver with Punjab Roadways. He caused accident. An award was passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in which the amount of R.S.A. No. 164 of 2005 
compensation was awarded to the claimants which was payable by the Department as well as the plaintiff who was the delinquent Driver. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against the plaintiff. Plaintiff was held guilty of negligent driving. He was also found responsible for the loss caused to the Department.
Consequently, besides ordering recovery of the amount of loss suffered by the Department, his two annual grade increments were ordered to be stopped.
Both the Courts have found it as a fact that the Departmental authorities had conducted independent inquiry and in the aforesaid inquiry the guilt of the plaintiff was duly proved. The award passed by the learned Tribunal was also taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that loss had been caused by the plaintiff to the Department. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first Appellate Court.
Sh.I.K. Mehta, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has argued that in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the State had taken a specific stand that plaintiff was not negligent in driving. In these circumstances, it has been contended that in the present suit, the defendants could not be heard to claim that the plaintiff was so negligent. A reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Mahendra Manilal Nanavati Vs. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, AIR 1965 SC 364.
I am afraid, the arguments of the learned counsel cannot be accepted.
The written statement which was filed by the authorities before the Tribunal was in independent proceedings, even though a stand was taken by the defendants in R.S.A. No. 164 of 2005 
the said proceedings that the Driver was not negligent. However, it was found it as a fact by the Tribunal that the Driver was indeed negligent for causing the accident. The aforesaid findings of the Tribunal are binding upon the defendants as well as on the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be heard to claim and take shelter of stand taken by the defendants in the written statement filed by them before Tribunal. After the firm finding recorded by the Tribunal, the plaintiff cannot make any grievance against the recovery for the loss caused by him. The punishment awarded to the plaintiff has been ordered after holding due inquiry in accordance with rules and regulation. It is well settled that civil Court can not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Departmental Authorities nor can interfere in punishment order.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
January 31, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.