The main legal point established is that an employer must consider the employee's acquittal, establish misconduct or ill-motive, and consider the employee's antecedents before imposing recovery of compensation from the employee's salary.

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - Petitioner, an employee of the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar Depot was on deputation with the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar in the year 1975. Being an employee of the Punjab Roadways, he had a lien in the State Services of the Punjab Transport Department.

2. On 18th August, 1983, the petitioner was driving a bus bearing registration No.PYE-5506 belonging to the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and during the course of duty, he caused an accident, as a result whereof a cyclist, namely Kartar Singh, received injuries and subsequently died in the hospital. Legal heirs of the deceased-Kartar Singh instituted a claim petition for grant of compensation in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 16th January, 1987, awarded compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.36,000/-with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment. The employer along with the petitioner was held jointly and severely liable to satisfy the award. An application for execution was filed and the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar paid Rs.51,120/-to the widow and daughter, the only legal heirs of the deceased-Kartar Singh, towards discharge of the claim. The employer, with whom the petitioner was on deputation, having paid the amount of compensation, issued a show-cause-notice dated 12th May, 1989 as to why the amount be not recovered from salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/-per month. The petitioner filed reply and pleaded therein that since the accident had taken place during the course of employment, the amount cannot be recovered from the employee. However, respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, Amritsar on 13th July, 1989 passed the impugned order (Annexure P-4) to deduct Rs.500/-per month from the salary of the petitioner to recoup the recovery. The impugned order (Annexure P-4) further stated that in case the High Court enhances the amount of compensation, further action against the petitioner shall be considered later-on. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order (Annexure P-4), whereby the amount was sought to be recovered after making necessary deduction from the salary of the petitioner. It is prayed that the impugned order (Annexure P-4) be quashed by this Court.

3. Ms. Vanita Sapra, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the employer is vicariously liable for the conduct of its servant and therefore, recovery of the amount cannot be effected from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent-Corporation had taken a categoric stand before the Tribunal that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Referring to the written statement filed by the employer, it is submitted that the employer genuinely believed that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the deceased-cyclist himself, therefore, once the employer was convinced that the petitioner was not responsible for the accident, then without holding any enquiry and following principles of natural justice, the petitioner could not be made liable to pay Rs.500/-per month from his salary. It is further submitted that the employer had filed an appeal bearing FAO No.402 of 1987 in this Court. The grounds of appeal have been annexed as Annexure P-6 with the petition. It is stated that from a perusal of grounds of appeal it is evident that the employer had pleaded that the petitioner, being a driver of the bus, was not negligent at all and the accident had taken place due to negligence of the cyclist. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the judgment (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted and he was acquitted of the charges under Section 304-A IPC. It is submitted that once the petitioner ha