Judgment :- The petitioner is employed as driver in the Police department. The Police vehicle bearing registration No.TN 37 G 0273 (Bajaj Tempo Van) met with an accident on 25.7.2003 when the vehicle was proceeding in Palladam to Trichy road. Due to accident, the rider of the motorcycle died. The legal heirs of the deceased filed M.C.O.P.No.1005 of 2003 before the Principal District Judge, Erode, claiming Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as compensation. The Tribunal passed an order dated 07.10.2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,34,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty four thousand only) along with 9% interest. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed an appeal against the aforesaid order in C.M.A.No.1783 of 2006 before this Court. 2. This Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,34,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty four thousand only) to Rs.2,78,000/-(Rupees two lakhs seventy eight thousand only) and the interest was fixed at 7.5% per annum. Ultimately, the department has paid a sum of Rs.4,39,615/- (Rupees four lakhs thirty nine thousand six hundred and fifteen only) towards compensation. 3. While so, the first respondent passed the impugned order, dated 13.6.2012 for recovery of a sum of Rs.8792/- (Rupees eight thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) from the salary of the petitioner in 25 instalments. The amount of Rs.8,792/-represents 2% of the total amount paid by the department towards compensation. 4. The impugned order states that the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government can be recovered as penalty as per G.O.Ms.No.393 Home (Transport IV) Department, dated 01.03.1988. Based on the same, the recovery was ordered. The consequential order dated 13.7.2012 was passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 13.6.2012 of the first respondent. 5. No counter affidavit is filed. The learned Government Advocate has made submission based on the instructions. Heard both sides. 6. A departmental action has been initiated against the petitioner in view of the accident referred to in the impugned order. It is admitted that the departmental action was dropped subsequently. Further, criminal action initiated against the petitioner on the same accident, resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. 7. In these circumstances, the issue is as to whether the department can recover a portion of the amount of compensation that was ordered in M.C.O.P. case. It is admitted that the departmental action was dropped subsequently. Further, criminal action initiated against the petitioner on the same accident, resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. 7. In these circumstances, the issue is as to whether the department can recover a portion of the amount of compensation that was ordered in M.C.O.P. case. The issue is directly covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.277 of 2006 dated 27.09.2006 (S.Krishnasamy vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul). I have also considered the similar issue in the judgment in W.P.No.43439 of 2006, dated 16.9.2010 (D.Nagarajan vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Enforcement, Chennai (South), Greams Road, Chennai). Paragraph 14 and 15 of the judgment dated 16.9.2010 in W.P.No.43439 of 2006 are extracted hereunder: "14. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in an identical situation, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11002 of 1999 (decided on 07.07.1999) held that the employer could not recover the compensation paid in motor accident cases from the employee. The relevant passage from the said judgment is extracted hereunder: " ........... In our view, the claim made is wholly unsustainable as the petitioners in the capacity of the employers of respondent No.1 are duty bound in law to pay the compensation payable by respondent No.1. Present proceeding which have been initiated for recovery back the said amount from respondent No.1 in the circumstances, is therefore summarily rejected. " 15. The said judgment also applies to this case. Moreover, the departmental action initiated by the respondent ended in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges. A Division Bench of this Court ( 2009(3) CTC 388 ) also held that it is mandatory for the employers to record the tentative conclusions on the differing views, if the views of the enquiry officer holding that the charges were not proved, was not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority and the delinquent employee should be heard before recording a finding of guilt. But the said mandatory procedure was not followed in the present case. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, I am not inclined to remand the matter to the respondent, as requested by the learned Government Advocate.' 8. But the said mandatory procedure was not followed in the present case. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, I am not inclined to remand the matter to the respondent, as requested by the learned Government Advocate.' 8. Furthermore, in the judgment dated 23.7.2010 in W.P.No.4428 of 2006 (R.Anbalagan vs. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 4 and 2 others) this Court held that the driver cannot be held liable for the compensation paid or part thereof and the recovery from the driver towards compensation paid by the department is not sustainable. Paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 23.7.2010 in W.P.No.4428 of 2006 is extracted hereunder: "5. The petitioner was a driver when the accident took place on 31.5.1998. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11002 of 1999 by order dated 7.7.1999 held as follows: 7 quot; The Department's action seeking recovery of the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from the driver of the vehicle, is wholly unsustainable as the respondent as the employer, is duty bound in law to pay the compensation amount. It is further stated therein that the recovery proceedings made by the employer is misconceived and the said claim was rightly negatived by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6516 of 1996 by order dated 13.8.1998." Following the said order of the Division Bench, W.P.No.17856 of 2008 was allowed by me by order dated 22.8.2008 against recovery ordered against a Driver of a Police vehicle. The said order was approved by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2009)2 MLJ 849 (Sevugaperumal v. Superintendent of Police). In para 14 the Division Bench held as follows: "14. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two judgments in order to show that in similar cases the Courts have held that compensation amount has to be paid by the department or by the employer concerned. Reliance was first placed on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of R.Nagendra Boopathi v. Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Salem, decided on 22.8.2008 passed in W.P.No.17856 of 2008. From the facts of that case, it appears that there was a machanical failure of the vehicle involved and as a result of which there was an accident. From the facts of that case, it appears that there was a machanical failure of the vehicle involved and as a result of which there was an accident. Apart from that it also appears in that case that the Driver of the vehicle, whose official duty was to drive the said vehicle, was a party before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal exonerated the driver.........." The Division Bench in the above cited decision held that if the police vehicle is driven by a driver of the Department and caused the accident, the driver cannot be held liable for the compensation paid or part thereof, and if a person has driven the vehicle, who was not the driver, the department can recover the part of the compensation paid to the victims." Besides, the impugned order states that the recovery was made as penalty, but no opportunity was given before passing the recovery order. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.