Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

s.s. nijjar, j.1. the petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the syl mech. sub division, kurukshetra, haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. as a result of which, one person died. the petitioner was prosecuted under section 304-a read with section 279 of the ipc. however, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. the claim petition filed by the lrs of the deceased was also dismissed, however, the claimants filed 1st appeal against the order in this court. the appeal was allowed. it was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, jaswant singh, the petitioner. compensation in the sum of rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the lrs of the deceased. the.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

S.S. Nijjar, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '614313',
			'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '614313',
		(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana and ors - Citation 614313 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '614313',
		'acts' => 'Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaswant Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K.L. Dhingra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-03-29',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.</p><p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.</p><p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.</p><p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.</p><p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.</p><p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.</p><p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2005)140PLR369',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '614313',
	(int) 1 => 'jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/614313/jaswant-singh-vs-state-haryana-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.S. Nijjar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer of his Division that since he had been held responsible for rash and negligent driving by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be recovered from his salary. The total sum was mentioned Rs. 95,1357- which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid directions by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kurukshetra. The Civil suit was partially decreed. It was directed that 50% of the compensation shall be paid by. the State and 50% shall be paid by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the State of Haryana preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a cross-appeal which was accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any amount from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of hearing and following proper procedure for fixing liability, if any. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 14.9.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.9.2004. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed an order dated 3.3.2005 directing the recovery of Rs. 95,000/- from the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of recovery could not have been passed against the petitioner for a number of reasons. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was driving the truck in the performance of his official duties, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that since the truck belongs to the State of Haryana, the entire liability has to be borne by the State. The petitioner was possessing a valid driving licence and therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 572. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that even if some compensation is to be paid by the petitioner, it cannot be more than 50% as the petitioner as well as the State would be jointly liable to pay the compensation.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. It is a matter of record that t his Court in F.A.O. No. 84 o f 1985 decided on 5.3.1997 held that the petitioner was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. As a consequence of which one person died. It has also been held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The LRs of the deceased were held entitled to the compensation as assessed and apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court, however, did not direct as to which of the respondents were to pay the compensation. The liability for payment was also not apportioned between the parties. The respondents, however, directly issued an order for making recovery of the amount of compensation from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,0007- per month. The aforesaid order was rightly set aside by the appellate court by its judgment dated 14.6.2004. The respondents were restrained from making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner, except after providing him an opportunity of being heard and following proper procedure for fixing his liability. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents issued a Memorandum on 14.9.2004 under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 asking him to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments besides recovery of loss be not imposed on him. The petitioner was duly served with the list of allegations.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It was pointed out that the LRs of the deceased had become entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.1997 in First Appeal from order No. 84/1985. The petitioner was informed that a loss of Rs. 95,000/-had been caused to the State exchequer due to his non-performance of duty with sincerity and dedication. He was, therefore, liable to pay the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been paid to the dependents of the deceased as per orders of the High Court. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. inspite of the finding recorded by the High Court, the petitioner still claims that he was not driving the truck which was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that the respondents were remiss in not insuring the truck. Had the truck been insured, the compensation would have been paid by the Insurance Company. He further pointed out that in Haryana Roadways, which is a department of Haryana Government, such claims are a matter of routine. However, no driver/government official is made responsible for payment of claims whatsoever out of accidents. Therefore, on the basis of the same logic, the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Irrigation Department. He further pointed out that the High Court did not issue any direction for recovering the amount of compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner was also given a personal hearing on 26,10.2004.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After due consideration of the reply, liability has been fastened on the petitioner, on the basis of the finding of rash and negligent driving given by this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the respondents is neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to the provisions of the rules. Under the rules, the loss caused to the exchequer can be recovered from the erring official, provided the procedure for inflicting minor penalty is duly followed. In the present case, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order. There is no breach of rules of natural justice. The petitioner has been given every opportunity to put forward his version of the events. The legal and factual defences raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. In our opinion, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Motor Vehicles
Court	Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On	Mar-29-2005
Case Number	Civil Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2005
Judge	S.S. Nijjar and; M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.
Reported in	(2005)140PLR369
Acts	Indian Panel Code - Sections 279 and 304A; Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Rule 4
Appellant	Jaswant Singh
Respondent	State of Haryana and ors.
Advocates:	K.L. Dhingra, Adv.
Disposition	Petition dismissed
Cases Referred	Dalip Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Krishna Kinra and Ors.

Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment