JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The appellant had challenged orders dated 05.10.2009 and 15.03.2010 by which a sum of Rs.1 lac has been recovered out of his gratuity towards his proportionate liability for payment of compensation to the members of the family of the deceased, died in a motor vehicular accident, admittedly caused by the appellant while driving the Punjab Roadways bus. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while driving the bus No.PJG-2820 from Ludhiana to Chandigarh, an FIR No.181dated 31.12.1996, under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered against him at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana in which he was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the family members of deceased Jang Singh. 3. While driving another bus No.PB-12-B-9605 on Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur route, the appellant met with another accident resulting into registration of FIR No.191 dated 28.10.2001, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar, but he was acquitted in that case also on 18.12.2009. However, he was held jointly liable by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for his rash and negligent driving and was ordered to pay compensation to the family of the victims/injured. 4. The disciplinary authority served two charge sheets dated 15.04.2004 and 25.08.2005 upon the appellant and after considering his reply, passed the orders dated 05.10.2009 and 15.03.2010 for recovery of 1/3rd of the compensation amount paid to the claimants. 5. The learned Single Judge, while relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sampuran Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 2009(3) SCT 137 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.14130 of 2009 decided on 12.09.2011, dismissed the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that not only the present case is covered by a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Driver v. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and another, [2011(5) Law Herald (P&H) 939 : 2011(2) Law Herald (Acc.) 236] : 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 552 but also the instructions of the Government dated 21.03.2002 regarding payment of half of compensation money by the driver of the Government vehicle responsible for an accident are not applicable as the accident had occurred much earlier. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellant has not admittedly challenged the orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by way of an appeal in which he has been held liable for payment of compensation to the extent of 1/3rd and further in the departmental inquiry, recovery of only 1/3rd compensation has been ordered from the appellant and the judgment in Kulwant Singh Driver’s case (supra) is not applicable as has been distinguished by the learned Single Judge because in that case there was no disciplinary inquiry held in accordance with the Rules. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the decision in Kulwant Singh Driver’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sampuran Singh’s case (supra) is fully applicable. Similarly, the decision in Karnail Singh’s case (supra) is also applicable and the relevant portion of the said judgment, which is reproduced by the learned Single Judge in his judgment, read as under:- “(12).With all humility at my command, the decision in Jaswant Singh’s case (supra) does not appear to be the correct statement of law. It is apparent that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Depot Manager APSRT Corpn. or of the Division Benches in Jaswant Singh and Sampuran Singh cases were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. (13). The unsuccessful defence plea taken by the Department/State Government to wriggle out of its liability, which was not accepted by the Tribunal while awarding compensation, is wholly inconsequential and irrelevant in the departmental action. The findings returned by the tribunal on the question of `rash and negligent driving’ which have attained finality are binding in nature so far as the domestic enquiry is concerned. Similarly, the acquittal in a criminal case where the prosecution is obligated to prove charges beyond `reasonable doubt’ must be viewed differently. The standard of proof required in a criminal case, need not be the same for a Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Disciplinary Authority under the Rules. Similarly, the acquittal in a criminal case where the prosecution is obligated to prove charges beyond `reasonable doubt’ must be viewed differently. The standard of proof required in a criminal case, need not be the same for a Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Disciplinary Authority under the Rules. However, if the punitive action has been taken without following the prescribed procedure, the writ court can always annul the same though leaving it open to the Authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law unless held otherwise for the reason(s) depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case.” 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and hence, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------