JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been directed against the impugned order dated 18.3.2002, appended as Annexure-8 to this writ petition, passed by Respondent No. 1/Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’. By the said order the respondent No. 1 had ordered withholding of the retirement benefits of the petitioner and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,014.95 from the retiral dues of the petitioner to compensate the loss of the Corporation due to accident of the Bus, by alleged negligence of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is driver in the Corporation. He claims that when he was driving Bus No. U.M.H. 9979 on Jaunpur to Varanasi route on 12.1.1994 it collided with a standing vehicle due to failure of brakes. In the accident right leg of the petitioner was fractured and in an unconscious state he was hospitalised in Kabir Chaur Hospital, Varanasi. After a long treatment he was declared physically disabled due to which he was unable to drive any vehicle in future. 4. In an inquiry held by Sri J.N. Sinha as Inquiry Officer, who submitted inquiry report on 8.3.1996 in which it has been held that the charge of driving negligently is not proved against the petitioner. 5. It has been proved from the evidence that the brakes of the Bus frequently did not use to work and in this regard many times the many drivers had lodged complaint to the authorities concerned. The Inquiry Officer has also recorded a specific finding that the petitioner has been implicated in false charge of theft of some part from the bus after accident but he could not have done as he was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state. Yet some parts have been included in the list of damaged and lost parts which are said to have been stolen by the petitioner. 6. The Inquiry Officer has also found that Sri G.D. Banerjee has deliberately framed the charges against the petitioner being criminal and prejudice to the petitioner and concluded that the accident had taken place due to failure of brakes which also finds support from the findings of the police report on investigation that the accident in question had taken place as the brakes had suddenly failed. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the charge due to the reason that he had filed claim against the Corporation for payment of disability compensation as his leg was fractured and he became unfit to drive a vehicle and only thereafter the charge has been levelled against him so that payment of compensation may be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner moved an application for his voluntary retirement from service being unfit to drive a vehicle as driver and the same was accepted on 12.11.2001 by respondent No. 2. 9. It is stated that for the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner was issued show cause notice on 8.1.2002 to show cause within fifteen days as to why the loss suffered by the Corporation due to accident of the bus caused by him, may not be recovered from his retiral benefits. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 18.2.2001. Thereafter, recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,014.95 has been ordered to be adjusted/recovered from his retiral benefits of the petitioner payable to him. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following extract of the impugned order : "AAROPI KA SANCHAI KATHAN EKDAM GALAT EVAM AMANYA HAl, KYONKI PATRAWALI ME UPLABDHA ABHILEKHO KE ADHAR PAR UKT VAHAN AAROPI KO DINANK 11.1.1994 KO DEPO SE MILl THI TATHA VAHAN 183 M.M. SANCHALIT HONE KE UPRANT SAYANKAL VARANASI ME HALT KAR DI GAl THI AUR DINANK 12.1.1994 KO PRATAH AAROPI DWARA VAHAN VARANASI SE JAUNPUR KE LlYE LE JAYEE JA RAHI THI KI VAHAN PHOOLPUR KE AAGE AAROPI KI LAPARWAHI KE KARAN DURGHATNAGRAST HO GAl. ISESE SPASTA HAl KI VAHAN KA BREAK KHARAB NAHI THA. SENIOR FORMAN EVAM JUNIOR FORMAN DWARA BHI APNI REPORT KI PUSTI KI GAl HAl KI VAHAN KA BREAK KHARAB NAHI THA. JANCH ADHIKARI NE JANGH AAKHYA KI VIVECHANA KARTE SAMAYA UKT BATON PAR DHAYAN NAHI DIYA HAl. IS PRAKAR UKT TATHYA KE ADHAR PAR AAROPI KE UPAR LAGAYE GAYE SAMAST AAROP PRAMANIT PAYE JATE HAl." 11. SENIOR FORMAN EVAM JUNIOR FORMAN DWARA BHI APNI REPORT KI PUSTI KI GAl HAl KI VAHAN KA BREAK KHARAB NAHI THA. JANCH ADHIKARI NE JANGH AAKHYA KI VIVECHANA KARTE SAMAYA UKT BATON PAR DHAYAN NAHI DIYA HAl. IS PRAKAR UKT TATHYA KE ADHAR PAR AAROPI KE UPAR LAGAYE GAYE SAMAST AAROP PRAMANIT PAYE JATE HAl." 11. On basis of above it is submitted that in spite of findings of the enquiry officer the authorities have disagreed with the findings and as such the aforesaid impugned order has been issued which is just and proper as the Corporation is entitled to recover the damages caused to bus by negligent driving by the petitioner. No other point has been raised by the parties. 12. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it is apparent from the enquiry report in this case that the petitioner has been implicated on false charge on report submitted by the Senior and Junior Forman who were inimical to the petitioner and they had also not come for evidence in spite of being summoned. Cogent reason has been given in the inquiry report for disbelieving the case of the Corporation wherein he has also noticed that the police after investigation had recorded an independent finding in its report that the accident of the bus driven by the petitioner was due to failure of brakes. 13. It is apparent from record that it was not for the first time that brakes of the bus in question had failed and were repaired a number of times on complaints made by other drivers also. 14. Thus from the records it appears that accident had not taken place due to alleged negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner but due to the fact that the brakes had not been properly repaired a number of times on complaints of the drivers of the Corporation. 15. The petitioner has already suffered irreparable loss of his right leg and has been declared unfit for driving any vehicle, due to which he cannot be deprived of only means on which he can pass his life which are retiral dues, and it appears that in the face of the inquiry report against the department impugned order has been passed malafide to adjust the compensation awarded to the petitioner from his retiral dues. 16. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.3.2002, appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay the full retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ————