Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 29 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2005ACJ114, RLW2004(2)RAJ738, 2003(4)WLC169
JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 18.4.1996 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 2.2.1996 (annex.15) passed by the respondent No. 3 Commandant (Police) First R.A.C. Mandore Road, Jodhpur by which the petitioner was held guilty of driving the Jeep in question negligently and rashly and since Rs. 18,900/- were paid by the respondents to injured Chiman Singh in motor accident claims, therefore, it was ordered that the said amount be got recovered and realized from the pay of the petitioner and furthermore, a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.
2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-
The petitioner was Constable Driver in the employment of the respondents and on 23.5.1987, he was driving the Jeep and he was directed to bring Company Commander Shri Ranglal and when he was driving the Jeep on that day, he made an accident with cycle sawar, as a result of which, one Chiman Singh injured and for that accident, a criminal case was also got registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC and through judgment and order dated 18.5.1989 (annex.2) passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, he was acquitted of the charges for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.
The further aspect of the case of the petitioner is that injured Ciman Singh filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short "Claims Tribunal") claiming compensation and that case was registered as MACT Case No. 5/88 and through judgment and award dated 22.2.1995 (Annex.3), the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to injured Chiman Singh.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner was ultimately, through impugned order dated 2.2.1996 (Annex.15) passed by the respondent No. 3 Commandant (Police) First R.A.C. Mandore Road, Jodhpur, the petitioner was held guilty of driving the Jeep in question negligently and rashly and since Rs. 18,900/- were paid by the respondents to injured Chiman Singh in motor accident claims, therefore, it was ordered that the said amount be got recovered and realized from the pay of the petitioner and furthermore, a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner.
4. In this petition, the impugned order Annex.15 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows:-
(i) That when the alleged accident took place, the petitioner was discharging the official duties as he was directed to bring Company Commander Shri Ranglal and thus State is victoriously liable for the tortious act committed by the employee and from this point of view, no civil liability can be fastened on the petitioner.
(ii) That the State cannot escape its vicarious liability to pay compensation to heirs of victim in accident and thus, realising of amount of Rs. 18,900/- from the pay of the petitioner is per se illegal and cannot be sustained. Similarly, the penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect also cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned order Annex. 15 be quashed and set aside.
A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that for tortious act committed by the employee, if financial burden is fastened on the State, that should be met with by the person concerned and the State should not be held vicariously liable for that. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
6. So far as the factual position of the case is concerned, there is not dispute on the point that when the alleged accident took place, the petitioner was driver of Government vehicle and while discharging his official duties, accident took place, as a result of which one Chiman Singh received injures and in MACT Case filed by Chiman Singh, the Claims Tribunal through judgment and award Annex.3 dated 22.2.1995 awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. as compensation to the injured Chiman Singh.
7. There is also no dispute on the point that through judgment and order dated 18.5.1989 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jodhpur, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges for the offence under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC.
8. The question for consideration is whether for tortious act committed by the petitioner during the course of his employment, the respondents could be held vicariously liable to pay compensation to injured Chiman Singh or not.
9. Before proceeding further something should be said about the phrase "vicarious liability".
10. The phrase "vicarious liability" means the liability of a person for the tort of another in which he had not part. A master is jointly and severally liable for any tort committed by his servant while acting in the course of his employment.
11. In order that this doctrine may apply, there are two conditions which must co-exist:-
(i) The relationship of master and servant must exist between the defendant and the person committing the wrong complained of; and
(ii) the servant must in committing the wrong has been acting in the course of his employment.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpabai v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1), has observed that the recent trend in law is to make the master liable for acts which do not strictly fall within the term 'in the course of employment' as ordinarily understood.
13. In State of Rajasthan v. Vidyavati (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the driver, a jeep owned and maintained by the State of Rajasthan for the Collector drove it rashly and negligently and while driving back from workshop knocked down a pedestrian. State is vicariously liable as the act of the driver falls within the course of employment.
14. Thus, it is concluded that the Government is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its servants or agents.
15. In this respect, the decisions in State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Kanchanmala Vijaysingh Shirke and Ors. (3) and State of Gujarat v. Govindbhai Jakhubhai and Anr. (4), may further be referred to.
16. In view of the position of law just stated above, when in the present case, the jeep in question was being driven by the petitioner in the course of employment, therefore, the State (respondents) cannot escape their vicarious liability and in view of this Conclusion, realising of amount, which was paid by the respondents to injured Chiman Singh, from the pay of the petitioner cannot be justified. Similarly, initiation of disciplinary proceedings for that act would not be justified and thus, the penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect also cannot be sustained.
17. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order Annex. 15 dated 2.2.1996 passed by the respondent No. 3 by which after holding the petitioner guilty of driving the jeep rashly and negligently, it was ordered that a sum of Rs. 18,900/- be got recovered from the pay of the petitioner and also a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner, cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.2.1996 (Annex. 15) passed by the respondent No. 3 Commandant (Police) First R.A.C. Mandore Road, Jodhpur is quashed and set aside.
No order as to costs.