JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - One Ananta Charan Pradhan of Village Oranda was ran over by a jeep bearing temporary registration number MRB 378 belonging to the State of Orissa on March 12, 1974. The incident gave rise two proceedings - one u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation initiated at the instance of the dependents of the deceased. Ananta and the other under the provisions of the Criminal Law. In the proceeding u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed an award on June 7, 1975 in favour of the dependents of the deceased Ananta for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with costs of Rs. 100/-. 2. On August 30, 1975, opposite party No. 3 issued a notice to the Petitioner informing him that the Tribunal had passed an award as aforesaid, against the State and inasmuch as he was the driver and it had been found by the Tribunal that the accident was due to the negligent driving called upon him to show cause as to why appropriate disciplinary action would not be taken against him for his negligent driving. A copy of the decision of the Tribunal was enclosed to the notice (Annexure-I). The Petitioner sent a reply as per Annexure-2 asserting that he was not a party to the proceeding before the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal was not binding on him. He was not guilty of rashness and negligence in driving the vehicle. He further averred that inasmuch as his guilt or innocence was sub judice in the criminal proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Athagarh, it was premature to take any disciplinary action against him. Then came the letter dated 24-11-1975 (Annexure-3) from the Executive Engineer holding him liable for a sum of Rs. 15,940/-. The Petitioner was informed that it had been decided to recover from him the sum of Rs. 15,940/-. which had been awarded by the Tribunal as compensation against the State. The Petitioner was called upon to deposit the said amount. By letter dated May 27, 1977 (Annexure-4) the Petitioner was informed that Government had decided to recover the entire amount by instalments. A sum of Rs. 111/- would be recovered from his pay every month. The Petitioner was further called upon to furnish property security to the tune of Rs. 16,000/. By letter dated May 27, 1977 (Annexure-4) the Petitioner was informed that Government had decided to recover the entire amount by instalments. A sum of Rs. 111/- would be recovered from his pay every month. The Petitioner was further called upon to furnish property security to the tune of Rs. 16,000/. The Petitioner submitted a reply as per Annexure-5 reiterating the contentions raised by him earlier in Annexure-2. He further averred that the institutions called 'The Orissa Work-charged Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1974' (Annexure-6), which came into force with effect from June 18, 1974, were not applicable to him. 3. The Petitioner has assailed the decision of the Government directing recovery of the amount mainly on the ground that his liability has not been fairly and reasonably fixed. There has been no inquiry into the allegations. The direction of the Government based on the decision of the Tribunal is invalid inasmuch as the Petitioner was not a party to the proceeding before the Tribunal although he was summoned to be examined as a witness. 4. The stand of the opposite parties is that the instructions as per Annexure-6 are applicable to the Petitioner. He was a work-charged employee having been appointed as a driver in the work-charged establishment under the Executive Engineer, Right Canal Division, Dhenkanal, as per Annexure-1 and was as such on the date on which the accident took place. The liability of the Petitioner has been fixed on the findings of the Tribunal which held the driver guilty of rash and negligent driving. The action has been taken in accordance with paragraph 17 of the instructions (Annexure-6). 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not a party to the proceeding before the Tribunal. May be, he was examined as a witness; may be, the Tribunal has recorded finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner. These by itself will not be sufficient to dispense with an inquiry by the disciplinary authority if it decided to adjudge the liability of the Petitioner. If the disciplinary authority desired to take action against the Petitioner on the allegation that the Petitioner was rash and negligent while driving the vehicle, it was obliged to hold an inquiry into the allegation. Neither the decision of the Tribunal nor its finding can render an inquiry unnecessary. If the disciplinary authority desired to take action against the Petitioner on the allegation that the Petitioner was rash and negligent while driving the vehicle, it was obliged to hold an inquiry into the allegation. Neither the decision of the Tribunal nor its finding can render an inquiry unnecessary. Admittedly, in this case no independent inquiry has been made. Annexure-3 is solely based upon the decision of the Tribunal holding the State liable for the accident. Had an inquiry been conducted and an opportunity been afforded to the Petitioner, it could be that he would have been able to convince the disciplinary authority that he was neither rash nor negligent while driving the vehicle. It was open to the disciplinary authority to come to conclusions different from those reached by the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal might have gone against the State for various reasons; inadequate defence from the side of the State, default, etc. Rightly, therefore, the counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the opposite parties adopted an untenable procedure by absolving them selves of the duty to hold an inquiry. Nature of inquiry would vary from case to case depending on the facts and circumstances. The allegation against the Petitioner was such that reliance on the decision of the Tribunal was not enough. It was obligatory on the disciplinary authority to ascertain the correctness of the allegation and determine the liability of the Petitioner. The allegation, in the facts and circumstances, could only be established by adducing evidence, either oral or documentary, in the inquiry. No such attempt was made. Paragraph 17 of the Orissa Work-charged Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1974, whereon reliance has been placed by the opposite parties, does not absolve the disciplinary authority from taking evidence. Hence, in our opinion, determination of the Petitioner's liability is contrary to law and principles of natural justice. We, therefore, quash Annexure-3, the decision fixing the Petitioner's liability and the directions contained in Annexure-4 indicating the manner of recovery. 6. In the result, the writ application is allowed. But in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. S.C. Mohapatra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed