Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashok Kumar vs M/O Urban Development on 16 January, 2023
1
O.A. No. 804/2021
Item No. 62 (C-5)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 804/2021
This the 16th Day of January, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Ashok Kumar, aged 52 years
s/o Sh. Om Kar,
working as Telephone Operator in
Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S.K.Hospital,
New Delhi.
r/o Q.No.150-C, Sector-IV. P.V.
Quarter No. C, Type3, Sector 4,
M.B. Road, New Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Health,
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. The Director of Estate-ll,
Directorate of Estate,
Nirman Bhawan, Govt. of India,
New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Director of Estate (E),
Directorate of Estates,
Nirman Bhawan, Govt. of India,
New Delhi.
4. The Addl. DGHS & Director,
Lady Hardings Medical College & Smt. S.K.Hospital,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi- 1.
.. .Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Anoop Kumar for Mr. U. Srivastava)
2
O.A. No. 804/2021
Item No. 62 (C-5)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 24.12.2020 vide which a direction to charge damages from him of the government quarter in his occupation has been ordered along with a further order that he shall be considered ineligible for allotment of General Pool Residential Accommodation for the remaining period of his service.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was living in a General Pool Residential Accommodation of the government in MB Road, New Delhi which was inspected on 10.05.2019 by an official of the Directorate of Estates. It was held pursuant to this inspection that this was a suspected case of subletting of the General Pool Residential Accommodation and accordingly a show-cause notice was issued to the applicant, he was given an opportunity of personal hearing, thereafter the impugned order was passed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Inspection Report which led to the issuance of the show cause notice merely states it to be a "suspected" case and nowhere establishes that there was any credible evidence that the applicant had sublet the said accommodation. 3 O.A. No. 804/2021 Item No. 62 (C-5)
4. Drawing attention to the specific entries in the inspection proforma, he submits that the inspecting authority has recorded that a relative of the applicant was found on the premises and photocopy of the documents was also submitted. The applicant submitted the necessary documents and information with respect to the possession of the said residence and the fact that he is staying there with his family but the same was not considered and the impugned order passed. The relief he seeks is as follows :
(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 (Annex.A/1) and notice dated 20.5.2019 (Annex.A/2) and all other consequential orders in compliance of impugned orders, declaring to the effect the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently the applicant is entitled for all the consequential benefits including restoration of Govt. Quarter on the name of the applicant and refund of recovered of panel/damage rent if any from the applicant.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.
5. Learned counsel also argues that none of the documents submitted by the applicant before the authorities as also the submissions he has made have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.
6. Moreover, it is on record that prior to the date of passing the impugned order, the applicant had already vacated the said premises on account of allotment to him of another residential accommodation by his department. 4 O.A. No. 804/2021 Item No. 62 (C-5)
7. Learned counsel for the respondents confirms that on 07.02.2020, the applicant had vacated the General Pool Residential Accommodation whereas the impugned order is dated 24.12.2021. He, however, submits that the fact of the applicant having sublet the accommodation stands established by the circumstances which have come up during to the course of the inquiry.
8. I have heard the learned counsels and also gone through the documents on record. The Inspection Report is dated 10.05.2019, the applicant had vacated the said accommodation on 07.02.2020 i.e. nearly 9 months thereafter. I fail to understand that once the applicant had vacated the said accommodation where was the trigger to pass the impugned order 10 months later i.e. on 24.12.2021, because in my well considered view, the issue had become redundant. Although the applicant is not put to any adverse suffering on account of this impugned order, however, it could serve as an impediment in future, were someone to enforce it with respect to the damages and hold him as debarred for allotment of General Pool Residential Accommodation for the residual period of service in the government.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances, I reiterate that the date on which the impugned order was passed holding the 5 O.A. No. 804/2021 Item No. 62 (C-5) applicant liable for damages as also ineligible to hold General Pool Residential Accommodation, he was no longer holding such an accommodation having vacated it 10 months back. Therefore, the impugned order having been redundant ab initio cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Tarun Shridhar) Member (A) /NISHA/