Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki - Appellant
Vs.
The Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application Nos. 3206 and 3213 of 2001
Decided On : 04-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nilesh A. Pandya
For the Respondents: Bharat T. Rao, Dipak R. Dave
The recovery of a decretal amount from the retiral benefits and salary of the petitioners to satisfy a decree passed by the Civil Court was deemed lawful, and the principle of double jeopardy was found to have no application in the case.
Headnote:
Double Jeopardy - Recovery of Pecuniary Loss - Section 304-A of IPC, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Sikander Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1438, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, 2008 2 SCC 241, Garment Cleaning Works, Bombay v. Wokmen, AIR 1962 SC 673, Calcutta Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1967) 2 SCR 596, M. Narasimhachar v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 247, Jarnail Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 47, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr., (1987) 2 SCC 179, State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar, (1988) 2 SCC 52
Fact of the Case:
The heirs and legal representatives of a lineman, late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki, filed writ-petitions challenging the recovery of a decretal amount from the retiral benefits of late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki and the salary of another petitioner, Kanubhai Solanki. The recovery was sought by the Board to satisfy a decree passed by the Civil Court in a Special Civil Suit for damages from the Board, where both petitioners were held jointly and severally liable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery of the amount from the petitioners on account of the pecuniary loss caused could not be said to be unlawful. It held that the principle of double jeopardy has no application in the facts of this case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Board was justified in seeking recovery of the requisite amount from the retiral dues of late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki and the salary of Kanubhai Solanki.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of double jeopardy and legal precedents to determine that the recovery of the amount from the petitioners was not unlawful. It emphasized that the recovery could be a part and parcel of the penalty in the Departmental proceedings.
Final Decision: Both the writ-applications were rejected, and the recovery of the amount from the petitioners was deemed lawful.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned writ-applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The writ-petitioners of SCA No. 3206 of 2001 are the heirs and legal representatives of late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki. Late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki. was working as a lineman with the erstwhile respondent Board. On 8.5.1990, the concerned office of the Board received a complaint regarding a fault in the power supply in the Taskend Society, Nizampura, Baroda. Accordingly, late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki along with one Kanubhai Solanki (helper), petitioner of SCA No. 3213/01 and one Dharmesh Parikh (apprentice) reached the place concerned to attend the complaint. Late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki and Kanubhai could find out the fault and they inturn asked Dharmesh Parikh to wait near the electric pole till they return after disconnecting the power supply. Immediately thereafter, one person came running and informed late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki and Kanubhai Solanki that Dharmesh Parikh had climbed on the pole and had sustained severe burn injuries on account of electrocution. Dharmesh Parikh (apprentice) died on being electrocuted.
3. On 14.2.1991, late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki was suspended from service. So far as the petitioner of the connected petition is concerned, no action was taken against him by the Board.
4. On 14.5.1991, a Departmental charge-sheet was issued to late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki and he was subjected to a Departmental inquiry. The Departmental inquiry resulted in an order of punishment of reversion dated 16.10.1998 to the post of Assistant lineman. It appears that a criminal prosecution was also instituted against both the petitioners. However, the criminal prosecution against both the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC resulted in acquittal of both the petitioners. In the meantime, the parents of the deceased Dharmesh Parikh instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 4/91 in the Court of Second Joint Civil Judge (SD), Baroda for damages from the Board. Late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki and Kanubhai Solanki both were joined as defendants in the said Suit along with the Board. The Suit claim was valued at Rs. 4,31,600/-. The suit was partly decreed and the Board as well as the two petitioners were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,46,000/- to the plaintiffs by way of damages. The respondent Board preferred a First Appeal No. 5228/98 before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. The Board also preferred Civil Application No. 8571/98 for stay of the operation, implementation and execution of the decree. This Court granted the stay on the condition that the Board shall deposit Rs. 3,29,746/- in the trial Court at Baroda.
5. On 11.10.2000, Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki passed away and his heirs and legal representatives i.e. the petitioners herein, claimed for the terminal dues payable to them. On 23.1.2001, the Board issued a notice to the widow of late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki that a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- would be recovered from the terminal dues payable to her to satisfy the decree passed by the trial Court. On 23.2.2001, a Civil Application was filed in the First Appeal No. 5228/98, pending before this Court, praying for stay of the operation of the notice dated 23.1.2001, and directing the respondent Board to pay the legal terminal dues to the petitioners since late Ranchhodbhai Mangalbhai Solanki was already subjected to a Departmental inquiry and was reverted to a lower post by way of punishment. In the same manner, on 12.2.2001, the Board issued a notice to the petitioner of the connected petition calling upon him to make good the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The Board informed him that the said amount would be deducted from his salary. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- p
