Ravichandran, S/O.Muthaiah, v. Joint Director of Health

ORDER This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order, dated

24.06.2015 in Na.Ka.No.2303/Pa1/13, and consequential proceedings, dated

01.09.2016 in Na.Ka.No.2330/Ki1/2011.

¶2Heard M/s.S.A.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents.

¶3The petitioner has joined the service as Dopi in Sivagangai Government Head Quarters Hospital in the year 1988 and thereafter, he was promoted as Hospital Driver, on 27.10.2010. He was driving the Government Hospital Ambulance vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-65-G-0250. On

12.05.2011, when the petitioner was driving the ambulance with patients who were referred from Sivagangai Government Hospital to Madurai Rajaji Hospital. Near Sivagangai to Madurai Ring Road Junction, a container lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-AJ-3165 and one Scorpio car bearing Registration No.TN-22-AX-1848 had dashed the petitioner's vehicle and met with an accident. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the container lorry driver and the Scorpio car, the petitioner's vehicle met with an accident and collapsed. Due to the said accident, the petitioner and his relatives were sustained injuries. Immediately, the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 12.05.2011 in Karuppaurani Police station and the case was registered in Crime No.230 of 2011. One of the injured persons had filed M.C.O.P.No.1250 of 2011 and the Tribunal has granted an award of Rs. 1,58,000/- with 7.5% interest, on 20.12.2012. Likewise, the other injured persons have also filed M.C.O.P. and compensation were awarded. The 1st respondent has issued the impugned order, dated 24.06.2015 stating that the Ambulance was damaged due to the accident and expenditure towards damage which was quantified as Rs.1,43,669/-, which is the loss incurred by the government. Hence the respondents have issued the impugned order of recovery and has also given installments to recover the said amount. Aggrieved over the said recovery order, the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 06.07.2015. The respondents have declined to consider the same. Hence, writ petitioner is before this Court.

¶4The respondents have filed counter stating that the petitioner did not bring to the knowledge of the higher authorities about the accident, only another driver, namely, Pushpavanam had informed the higher authorities about the accident. The details of the accident were not stated by any witness as well. Therefore, the respondents have come to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the rash and negligence of all the parties. The petitioner had submitted a representation to cancel the recovery order. After consideration, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's claim and directed the authorities to recover the same. Therefore, the respondents submitted that due to the negligence of the petitioner, the said accident has occurred. The Government has incurred expenses to repair the damaged ambulance to the tune of Rs.1,43,669/-. According to the prevailing rules, the said recovery order was passed. Hence, the respondents prayed to reject the writ petition.

¶5The first contention that was raised by the petitioner is that without issuing show cause notice the present impugned order was passed, hence the recovery order is liable to be quashed. It is seen from the records that the respondents have straightaway passed the impugned order without issuing any notice. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to the interfered quashed.

¶6The next contention that was raised by the petitioner is that in the MCOP, there is a specific finding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the lorry, which means the petitioner has not driven the ambulance in rash and negligent way. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "kDjhuh; N[k;]; jdJ cwtpdh;fSld; 12.05.2011Mk; Njjpad;W fhiy 10.15 kzpastpy; rptfq;if muR jiyik kUj;Jtkizapy; ,Ue;J kJiu muR kUj;Jtkizf;F jdJ Nky; rpfpl;irf;fhf Kjy; vjph;kDjhuUf;F nrhe;jkhd b.vd;.63- [p-0250 TEMO TRUX Mk;Gyd;]; %ykhf kJiu Nehf;fp te;J nfhz;bUe;j NghJ gfy; Rkhh; 12.00 kzpastpy; kJiu-rptfq;if hpq; NuhL re;jpg;gpy; fpof;fpypUe;J Nkw;F Nehf;fp gazk; nra;j NghJ hpq; Nuhl;by; njw;fpypUe;J tlf;F Nehf;fp te;j 3tJ vjph;kDjhuUf;F nrhe;jkhd b.vz;.59-V.n[.3165 vd;w yhhpia mjd; Xl;Ldh; mjpNtfkhfTk;> ftdf;FiwthfTk; Xl;b te;J hpq; Nuhl;il fle;J Kbf;Fk; Neuj;jpy; 1tJ vjph;kDjhuUf;F nrhe;jkhd Mk;Gyd;]; kPJ Nkhjptpl;lJ. ,jdhy; 1tJ vjph;kDjhUf;F nrhe;jkhd Nkw;gb Mk;Gyd;]; epiyjLkhwp kJiu-rptfq;if nkapd;Nuhl;by; epWj;jp itf;fg;gl;bUe;j thfdq;f;s Nkhjp ftpo;e;Jtpl;lJ. ,jdhy; kDjhuUf;Fk; mtUld; te;j mtuJ cwtpdh;fSf;Fk; gyj;j fhaq;fs; Vw;gl;lJ. ,jdhy; ,k;kDjhuh; vjph;kDjhuh;fsplk; &.1>50>000-NfhhpAs;shh;."

¶7When the tribunal has rendered a specific finding that the petitioner has not driven the vehicle in rash and negligent way the petitioner cannot be liable for such damages. Hence, the recovery order cannot be sustained in law. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

¶8The next contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have claimed that the petitioner has not informed the higher authorities about the accident. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the First Information Report was registered based on the information given by the petitioner alone. On perusal of the First Information Report, it is seen it was registered on the instance of the petitioner alone. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶9Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 24.06.2015 in Na.Ka.No.2303/Pa1/13, and the consequential proceedings, dated 01.09.2016 in Na.Ka.No.2330/Ki1/2011, are hereby quashed. Inspite of interim stay was granted at the time of admission, the respondents have recovered some amount through installments. Therefore, the respondents are directed to repay the same to the petitioner forthwith. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No

05.04.2023 Internet : Yes

ksa To:

¶1The Director of Health Service, Sivagangai District – 630561.

¶2The Director, Medical and Rural Health Service, Anna Salai, Chennai -6.

¶3The Chief Medical Officer, The Government Hospital, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District – 630 606. S.SRIMATHY, J ksa

05.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P(MD)Nos. 13913 & 13914 of 2016 Ravichandran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director of Health Service, Sivagangai District – 630561. 2. The Director, Medical and Rural Health Service, Anna Salai, Chennai -6. 3. The Chief Medical Officer, The Government Hospital, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District – 630 606. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the recovery proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2303/Pa1/13, dated 24.06.2015 and consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2330/Ki1/2011, dated 01.09.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.S.A.Ajmal Khan For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate