JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the charge sheet issued by the respondent at Annexure-9 dated 08.04.2011. 2. It is submitted that an accident took place while petitioner was driving a Government vehicle. He was served with the charge sheet followed by an order of punishment at Annexure-4 dated 06.03.2006. Therein, two charges were taken into consideration against petitioner out of which one was regarding rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Petitioner was punished with the punishment of censure and was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 9,760/- towards damages of the vehicle. After expiry of about five years, petitioner has been again served with the charge sheet for the same incident. First three charges make reference of the accident and allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, thereby, criminal case was registered. The charge sheet is further in reference to the award passed against the Government by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal') in a claim petition filed by the claimants of the deceased. Petitioner has been served with the charge sheet giving out as to why aforesaid amount of compensation should not be recovered from him. 3. It is submitted that for one and same charges of the accident, matter cannot be taken up on two occasions. This is more so when first charge sheet was concluded with an enquiry and punishment. Petitioner had paid the amount of penalty inflicted upon him. Now, after inflicting the first punishment, second charge sheet cannot be issued against the petitioner for same incident and he cannot be made liable for the claim accepted by the Tribunal as the department being principal employer becomes liable for the same. Similar controversy has been decided by this court in the case of " Jaswant Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2003(3) WLC (Raj.) 169. Therein, judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan v. Vidyavati", reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 933, was also considered and therein it has been held that in case of an accident of a vehicle, State would be liable, being principal employer. 4. Looking to the facts aforesaid, the charge sheet so issued by the respondents deserves to be set aside in the light of the representation made by the petitioner. 5. 4. Looking to the facts aforesaid, the charge sheet so issued by the respondents deserves to be set aside in the light of the representation made by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that first charge sheet was issued at the time when no award was passed by the Tribunal. Now, the State has been made liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2,48,503.00 thus second charge sheet was issued accordingly. 6. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record of the case carefully. 7. It is a case where for one and same incident two charge sheets exist. First charge sheet contains two allegations against petitioner out of which one is regarding rash and negligent driving. Petitioner was punished therein with the punishment of censure and, as stated, an amount of Rs. 9,750/- has also been paid towards damages caused to the vehicle. The fact now remains is as to whether second charge sheet can be served on the petitioner for the same incident. 8. The only justification given by the learned counsel for respondent is in reference to the award passed by the Tribunal. It is urged that to make good of compensation awarded to the claimants, petitioner is required to be made liable hence, charge sheet has been issued to him. 9. The aforesaid argument was considered by me in the light of the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh and Vidyavati (supra). In the case of Vidyavati (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held State Government liable for payment of compensation, as it is vicariously liable for the act of the driver being principal employer. 10. In the light of the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh and Vidyavati (supra), respondent is under an obligation to consider the matter for dropping the charge sheet. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above and, for that purpose, judgments in the case of Jaswant Singh and Vidyavati (supra) may be taken note of. 12. This is more so when the charges are also in regard to rash and negligent driving which otherwise cannot be taken up in the second charge sheet because first charge sheet also contains the same allegations. 12. This is more so when the charges are also in regard to rash and negligent driving which otherwise cannot be taken up in the second charge sheet because first charge sheet also contains the same allegations. The second charge sheet is by improving the fact that one person died but it cannot be considered to be a new fact as the person died on the spot itself thus while issuing first charge sheet, respondent was aware about the death occurring out of the accident. Charge No.2 is nothing but again about rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. So far as remaining charges are concerned, they are arising out of the award passed by the Tribunal but then aforesaid cannot be taken as a ground to issue second charge sheet as main charge remains about rash and negligent driving and it was part of first charge sheet also. Aforesaid observations have been made for consideration of the case of the petitioner by the respondents to drop the charge sheet. 13. Respondent may undertake necessary exercise within a period of one month of the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. In view of disposal of the writ petition, stay application also stands disposed of. *******