Judgment : The petitioner, is a driver in Government Primary Health Centre, Vellore District and aggrieved by the notice dated 26.7.2005 issued by the Office of the Assistant Director, Department of Health and Family Welfare, directing him to pay Rs. 64,666/- towards the award passed-by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, he has filed the present writ petition. 2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: On 15.2.1992 about 6.15 p.m., a jeep bearing Registration No. TCW 4782, driven by the petitioner, dashed against a moped bearing Registration No. TAJ 6579, driven by one Olaganathan. His brother was travelling as a pillion rider in the said moped. At the instance of said Olaganathan, F.I.R., was lodged against the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, Arani in STC. No. 565 of 1992, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep. The driver of the moped, Olaganathan, made a claim in M.C.O.P. No. 89 of 1992, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arani, in which, the Director of the Family Welfare Department, Chennai and the petitioners were arrayed as first and second respondents respectively. Though the petitioner contested the claim by filing a counter affidavit, the Tribunal found that the driver of the jeep, the petitioner herein was responsible for the accident, and directed the Director of Family Welfare Department, Chennai, the second respondent herein, to deposit Rs. 31,414/- with interest at the rate of 9% interest per annum from the dale of claim, i. e., 30.4.1992, within two months from the date of order. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 26.7.2005 and was directed to pay Rs. 67,666/-towards the award amount and the same is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the vehicle is owned by the Government and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the victim. The petitioner has further submitted that the Tribunal has fastened the liability only on the second respondent and therefore, the impugned notice directing him to pay compensation is illegal and it is violative of principles of natural justice. 3. On the other hand, the third respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner, driver of the Government Primary Health Centre, drove the Government vehicle and met with an accident on 15.2.1992. 3. On the other hand, the third respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner, driver of the Government Primary Health Centre, drove the Government vehicle and met with an accident on 15.2.1992. But the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Director of the Government Primary Health Centre. The third respondent has submitted that as per G.O. Ms. No. 393 Government of Tamil Nadu Home (TN IV) Dept. dated 1.3.1988, the vehicles owned by the Central Government or State Government are not insured and as per Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Departmental Vehicle Control Rules, 1976, the Government owned vehicles are used for public purposes and not for commercial purposes and they are exempted from Insurance against the third party risk. It is further submitted that in order to enforce strict discipline among the driver of the Government vehicles, Government has examined the question of recovery of token amount from the drivers in case of accident to Government vehicles. On examination, the Government has considered the proviso to Rule 8 (v) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) rules and concluded that if any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government by the negligence of the Government servants, recovery can be made by way of penalty. Under this circumstance, the Government has considered that there is no need for making separate rules for making token recovery from the drivers, if they have caused the accident. 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 89 of 1992, the Government has issued G.O. Ms (T). No. 1149, Health and Family Welfare (AT-1), Department, dated 19.10.2004 to disburse the compensation of Rs. 67,666/-with accrued interest to the injured persons as directed by the Tribunal and recover the same from the petitioner. It is further stated that as per Rule 8(v)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules, the Government is empowered to recover the pecuniary loss caused by the Government servant by his negligence. Therefore, the third respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. It is further stated that as per Rule 8(v)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules, the Government is empowered to recover the pecuniary loss caused by the Government servant by his negligence. Therefore, the third respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Placing reliance on the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 11002 of 1999 dated 7.7.1999, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recovery of compensation from the salary of an employee for the loss sustained by the Department, due to his negligence is unsustainable and it is the duty of the employer to pay compensation to the victims. He further submitted that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner before passing an order for recovery. She also brought to the notice of this Court a decision rendered by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 26541 of 2005 dated 29.6.2006. 6. I have gone through the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But with great respect, I would like to say that the Hon‘ble Division Bench would not have passed the above order, if the relevant rules relating to recovery and Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 393 Government of Tamil Nadu Home (TN IV) Dept. dated 1.3.1988 were brought to notice of the Hon‘ble Bench. As per Rule 8(v)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules, when any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government due to the negligence of the Government Servant, recovery from their pay, whole or part of such pecuniary loss, can be made by way of penalty. Since the Government vehicles are not insured as per Section 94(2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1989, Government is constrained to pay huge sum of compensation to the third parties, due to the negligence of the drivers of the Government vehicle. Therefore, the Government thought it fit to enforce strict discipline among the drivers of the Government vehicles and it recovered the amounts from their pay, if the accident caused was due to the negligence of the drivers. Under such circumstances, the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 393 Government of Tamil Nadu Home (TN IV) Dept. dated 1.3.1988 has observed that there is no need for making separate rules for effecting token recovery from the drivers, if the drivers are responsible for the accident. 7. Under such circumstances, the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 393 Government of Tamil Nadu Home (TN IV) Dept. dated 1.3.1988 has observed that there is no need for making separate rules for effecting token recovery from the drivers, if the drivers are responsible for the accident. 7. If the erring Government servant is left scot free, then the loss, caused due to the negligence of the driver, has to be borne by the Government and huge amount of compensation has to be paid from the Government funds. Invariably, in all these cases, Government as an employer, has to pay the compensation caused to the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Even if departmental action taken against the erring Government servant for causing accident, it would not be a substitute for the monetary loss caused due to his negligence. The Government Order issued to enforce strict discipline cannot said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The Government Order is to ensure that the drivers of the Government vehicles exercise due care and caution while driving the vehicles and reduce number of the accidents. Unless the above said Rule and the Government Order is enforced strictly against the erring Government drivers, then the Government has to spend huge money towards litigation and payment of compensation. 8. In view of the above, I do not think that the impugned order is unreasonable and suffers from illegality warranting interference. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.