Delhi High Court
Raman Kumar Marwaha (4480 M. Lt. Col. ... vs Jt. Secy. (Trng.) & Chief Adm. Officer on 20 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000IIAD(DELHI)900, 84(2000)DLT325
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K. Ramamoorthy
ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The writ petitioner is highly qualified Doctor working in the Defense Service. He, was allotted residential accommodation as per his entitlement. On 5.1.1995 he was asked to move to higher accommodation and to vacate the accommodation given to him under Defense Pool. On 30.1.1995 the petitioner was directed to pay damages for use of the flat allotted to him w.e.f. 5.1.1995 @ Rs. 6,344/-. In November 1997 the petitioner surrendered the flat allotted to him and shifted to accommodation allotted from the General Pool. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent was not justified in demanding penal rate of rent from 5.1.1995 upto the date he vacated the premises in November, 1997.
2. A few facts necessary to be noticed are as follows :-
In March 1977 the petitioner was recruited in the Indian Army in Army Medical Core as Capt. In the year 1980 he was posted in 27 AD Regiment, Delhi. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Major in April 1983. He completed his Directorate of Medicine in 1984. On 22.10.1984 the petitioner was posted to Institute of New Clear Medicine & Allied Sciences, Delhi. On 15.12.1984 the petitioner applied for allotment of residential accommoda-tion for his family because he was married. The petitioner was allotted Flat No. 29 Block 3, (Third Floor) Arjun Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner occupied the flat in February, 1985.
3. In the year 1987 while he was working in the Institute of New Clear Medicine & Allied Sciences was awarded Fellowship of World Health Organisa-tion and he under went training in different Endocrine Centres in USA and UK.
4. On 17.4.1989 the petitioner was promoted as Lt. Col. and was designated as Head-Endocrine Department at INMAS.
5. On 26.7.1988 the petitioner was selected for Permanent Secondment to the third respondent (Defense Research & Development Organisation). The order reads as under :-
"PERMANENT SECONDMENT : AMC OFFIC ERS IN DRDO The undersigned is directed to say that the following officers have been approved for permanent secondment to the Defense Re- search and Development Organisation w.e.f 04 May, 88 :-
(a) Lt. Col. Amarnath Jena (MR-3477)
(b) Lt. Col. SJ Naidu (MR-02739)
(c) Maj. JK Bansal (MR-03539)
(d) Maj. RK Marwaha (MR-04480) These officers will now be governed by terms and conditions of service as laid down by Govt. of India vide their Office Memoran- dum No. pers/18601/RD Sol Bd/7971/D (R&D), dated 23 November, 1979 as amended."
6. In the year 1992 after successful completing the Post Doctoral Fellow-ship in Endocrinolgy. The petitioner was awarded Diploma by the National Board. On 31.1.1990 a general instructions were issued by the Union of India to the Chiefs of the Army Staff, Naval Staff and Air Staff, with reference to allotment of quarters. Paragraph (b)(II)(ii) of the instruc-tions reads as under :-
"Deputationist officers, who are permanently seconded to DRDO, DGQA and Coast Guard and have been allotted regular. Defense Pool accommodation by the CAO prior to issue of this letter will be allowed to retain that accommodation till the alternative hired accommodation is provided to them by the CAO or they are posted out of the station, whichever is earlier."
7. It may be noticed here that the petitioner was allotted a flat in Arjun Vihar in 1985 and that was in accordance with the Rules, then in force. On 8.11.1990 the Director of Estate, Govt. of India issued a Memorandum in the following terms :-
"Subject : Eligibility of permanently seconded Defense Service Officers for General Pool accommodation.
A question has arisen about the eligibility for General Pool accommodation of the Defense Service Officers who are permanently seconded to Organisations like DGQA or other Organisations under the Ministry of Defense including the Ministry itself. It has been clarified by the Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defense that such officers are entitled to allotment of hired accommodation from Defense Pool. Since General Pool is not in- tended for allotment to officers who are eligible for departmen- tal pool accommodation, whether owned or hired by the Deptt., it has been decided that the applications for allotment of General Pool accommodation from Defense service officers permanently seconded to Organisations under the Ministry of Defense including the Ministry itself shall not be considered notwithstanding the fact that the office where they are posted is eligible for gener- al pool residential accommodation. The eligibility will be re- stricted to the Civilian employees of such organisations."
8. Whatever be the position taken by the Director of Estate and the Govt. of India, with reference to allotment to officers who had gone by second-ment, the petitioner having been allotted the flat in 1985 cannot be dis-turbed unless he was allotted flat which would enable him to discharge his functions efficiently.
9. On 28.2.1992 the Quartering Officer wrote to the third respondent (DRDO) the following :-
"Vacation of Defense Pool Accommodation.
It has now been decided by the Government that officers posted to DGQA and DRDO, both permanently seconded and those posted on tenure basis, should not be allotted accommodation from the Defense Pool and those who are already in occupation of Defense Pool accommodation should vacate the same by 31.3.92. The respon- sibility for providing accommodation to such officers now lies with these Organisations.
2. You are in occupation of Defense Pool Flat No. 29/3, Arjun Vihar, New Delhi. In the light of the above orders, you are requested to vacate the accommodation by 31.3.92 positively. Allotment of this accommodation in your name will stand cancelled w.e.f. 31.3.92. For allotment of alternative accommodation, you may contact your administrative authorities in your organisation."
10. The petitioner in the writ petition explained his position in the year 1992 and 1993 :-
That in February 92, the respondent No. 1 arbitrarily, unilater- ally and in violation of the Regulations and Ministry directions decided to get the accommodation provided to the service officers permanently seconded to DRDO vacated and to further place the responsibility of providing accommodation on DRDO and directed the petitioner and all other service officers posted to DRDO/DGQA to vacate the premises by 31.3.92. On DRDO taking up the matter with the Ministry, the latter permitted retention of the accommo- dation by such officers till May 93 and imposed the condition that the officers concerned undertake to vacate the Premises by 31.5.93 and shift to accommodation to be provided by DRDO/alternative hired accommodation by CAO.
That while on such permanent secondment to DRDO, the petitioner was selected and sent to the United Kingdom on official duty for specialised training in Molecular Endocrinology from September 92 to February 93."
11. The petitioner and other three officers in Army Medical Core repre-sented to the Defense Secretary, Govt. of India and the relevant portion of the representation is as under :-
"(i) The Medical Officers posted at INMAS have multifarious, duties of attending not only the duties at INMAS complex but visit frequently and periodically the Military Hospitals, ICMR, AIIMS, Safdarjung Hospital, RML Hospital etc. to have profession- al interaction, follow up and discussion of their research projects. This is absolutely essential as no in-patient Hospital facility exist at INMAS.
(ii) That from domestic front as well, in view of the allotment of the accommodation at Dhaula Kuan the petitioner's wife has taken up employment in Air Force Golden Jubilee School, Subroto Park and Child has been admitted in the nearby Public School.
(iii) That medical facility (Army Hospital) to which the petitioner and his family are entitled are located nearby which is of great importance in day-to-day life.
(iv) That certain Flats of DRDO which have been allotted to the officers who are posted to DRDO on tenure basis while their allotments are controlled and required to be made by CAO from the Defense Pool. Thus these officers having been allotted accommoda- tion from the DRDO quota, in turn officers who have been holding the Defense Pool Accommodation under the control of the CAO may be permitted to retain the same sine such an exchange within the Ministry of Defense is admissible and an officer who is occupying station Head Quarter accommodation, Delhi Area has been permitted to retain the same even after he ceased to be entitled to the said accommodation."
12. On 8.7.1993 the Dy CAO (Quarters) made a note in the following terms:-
RETENTION OF DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION BY PERMANENTLY SECONDED SERVICE OFFICERS (AMC)
1. Reference your note No. Wks/34456/97/RD-28 dated 20.5.93.
2. The case has been examined, it is noticed that you have recommended retention of Defense Pool account by four officers of INMAS. It is not clear whether this recommendation has been made taking into account the personal made taking into account the personal needs of these four officers or it is based on an organ- isational need. In case it is an organisational requirement, the same should be stated categorically. Moreover, there is no men- tion of either the date of retirement or posting out of these officers and whether they are to be permitted retention as long as they remain posted to DRDO.
3. It may also be intimated whether DRDO recommends retention of accn only by the four officers mentioned in your note under reference or such dispensation is to be made in the case of the remaining five officers also. If recommendation for retention of Defense Pool accn is made based on an organisational need, then DRDO should transfer an equal number of flats available with them at Timar Pur to this office for allotment to officers. The position in this regard may please be clarified.
4. An early reply is requested."
13. On 14.7.1993 the Joint Director, Administration put up a note stating:-
"Subject : RETENTION OF DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION BY PERMANENTLY SECONDED SERVICE OFFICERS (AMC) Reference your note No. PC/41187/DGQA/CAO/Q-1 dated 8 July. 93.
2. The recommendations forwarded by DRDO for retention of Defense Pool Accommodation by permanently seconded service offi- cers of INMAS have been done taking into consideration the bene- fits and advantages that would accrue to the Organisation because of the necessity for the officers concerned to regularly and constantly interact with Army Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and other leading hospitals in South Delhi in pursuit of R&D activities in the field of INMAS specialisation. We consider that their continued stay in the Cantonment area for close by would be of immense benefit to the Organisation.
3. The recommendations do not take into consideration other service officers permanently seconded to DRDO and posted in the R&D Establishments at Delhi.
4. In case our recommendations are approved, we would be willing to earmark the same number of service officers quarters from DRDO Pool at Timarpur for allotment at the disposal of CAO (Q).
5. We would request that Vice Admiral R. Kohli, VSM (IN) may kindly be permitted to retain the CAO Pool of accommodation as a special case since he is the only officer of the rank of Lt. Gen equivalent on the permanent establishment of DRDO. This has the approval of Chief Controller R&D."
14. On 29.12.1993 the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defense asked the petitioner to vacate :-
"Subject : VACATION of REGULAR DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION.
The PSOC in their meeting held on 10.11.93 have decided that the decision of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), that the offi- cers permanently seconded to DRDO/DGQA and are in occupation of Defense Pool accommodation be shifted to alternative accommodation, be strictly enforced and implemented. No application/request for continued retention of Defense Pool accommodation be entertained.
2. As per our records, you are presently in occupation of Defense Pool accommodation No. 29/3 at Arjun Vihar.
You are, therefore, requested to vacate the Defense Pool accommodation immediately and contact this office for alternative accommodation.
Please accord 'PRIORITY'."
15. On 20.2.1994 the Govt. of India issued an order that officers will have to vacate the premises if they are posted out of Delhi. The order reads as under :-
"SPECIAL DISPENSATION TO RETAIN DEF POOL ACCN MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE DRDO.
1. The DRDO has brought out that four medical officers posted to INMAS are in occupation of Defense Pool accn. These officers are extensively involved in research and providing specialist services to members of the three Services. They have an additional requirement of making frequent visits to AIIMS, Army Hospital, and other major medical institutions, all of which are located in South Delhi and Cantonment area for carrying out Clinical discussions and research projects.
2. The above issues were explained to the Chairman Chiefs of Staff on 15 Feb. 94 by the undersigned. The Chairman Chiefs of Staff has granted special dispensation to these officers in view of the fact that they carry out research in the interests of the Services and on humanitarian grounds, to retain Defense Pool accn with the following provisos :-
(a) The officers would have to vacate accn in case transferred out of Delhi area.
(b) This is a one time exception and will not be quoted as a precedent.
3. The names of the officers are listed below :
(i) Brig CM Khanna
(ii) Lt. Col A Jena
(iii) Lt. Col RP Tripathi
(iv) Lt. Col RK Marwah
4. You are requested to action accordingly."
16. On 21.9.1994 the Quartering Officer wrote to the petitioner asking him to vacate and same is as under :-
"Subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION.
The Chiefs of Staff Committee considered the issue of retention of Defense Pool regular accommodation by the officers permanently seconded to DRDO/DGQA on case to case basis. The Committee was of the view that there was no obligation the services to provide accommodation to permanently seconded officers. The Committee has, therefore, directed that all permanently seconded officers of DRDO/DGQA in occupation of DP accommodation (regular/hostel) are to vacate the same at the earliest. This office has to issue notices to the officers concerned and submit a completion report for the perusal of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
2. As per our records you are presently in occupation of Defense Pool accommodation No. 29/3 Arjun Vihar, New Delhi. You are, therefore, requested to contact this office for alternative hired accommodation to facilitate ...... the Defense Pool regular/hostel accommodation immediately but not later than 7.10.94.
3. Please accord PRIORITY."
17. On 28.9.1994 the petitioner wrote to the Quartering Officer in reply the following :-
"Sub : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION.
Ref. your letters No. 41187/DCQA/DRDO/CAO/Q-1 dated 21 Sept'. 1994 received on 26th Sept' 1994 asking me to vacate my permanent accommodation i.e. 29/3 Arjun Vihar by 9th Oct' 1994 and contact CAO office for alternate hired accommodation. In this context you are requested to refer to the Ministry of Defense letter No. DMW/32200/1/PSOC dated 20.2.94 granting me special dispensation to retain my accommodation and therefore the present vacation order is not applicable to me."
18. On 4.10.1994 the first respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the premises by 7.10.1994 and the letter was received by the petitioner on 10.10.1994. The petitioner made representation and there was no reply. On 12.10.1994 the Ministry of Defense wrote to the Office of the JS(Trg) & CAO the following :-
"Subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION
1. Reference your letter No. 41/87/DGQA/DRDO-1 dated 04 Oct 94 addressed to the four officers of DSRDO.
2. These four MC officers involved in research and providing specialist services to the members of the three services were exempted from vacation of the residential accommodation vide QMG Branch letter No. DMW/322001/PSOC dated 20 Feb. 94.
3. In addition, this office has offered to surrender equal number of service officers quarters (Majors and above) in Timarpur in exchange of the above this office letter No. Wks/ 34456/97/RD-28 dated 14 July 93 as per suggestion made vide para 3 of your Note No. PC-41187/DGQA/DRDO/CAO-Q-1 dated 08 July 93.
4. In view of the above it is requested that these four specialist officers be permitted to retain the above accommodation.
5. In cases, the proposal given in para 4 above can not be agreed to, these officers may please be permitted to retain the accommodation on compassionate grounds upto the academic session as their children are in higher classes (Class X to XII) and disturbance at this critical juncture may prove harmful to the children.
6. You are requested to reconsider the cases sympathetically and permit retention of married accommodation upto the academic session."
19. What was pointed out by the Ministry of Defense was that in case the Seconded Officers were to retain the flats allotted equal number of flats must come from the DRD to the General Defense Pool.
20. On 5.1.1995 the Quartering Officer wrote to the petitioner :-
"Subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION.
1. Reference this office letter of even number dated 21 Sep 94.
2. You were requested to contact this office latest by 7.10.94 for allotment of alternative hired accommodation to facilitate vacation of the Defense Pool regular/hostel accommodation. However, as you have failed to report to this office, allotment letter No. 97666/Allotment/CAO/Q-1 dated 5 Jan 95 for an alternative hired accommodation is enclosed.
3. You are requested to take over the accommodation latest by the date indicated in the allotment letter under intimation to this office. In case you fail to do so, besides charge of damage rent w.e.f. the date of allotment of the hired accommodation to date of vacation of the regular/hostel accommodation, the matter will be reported to the Estate Officer, Ministry of Defense for proceeding against you under the PPE Act, 1971."
21. It may be noticed that this was when the matter was being considered by the Govt. of India at the instance of the third respondent DRDO.
22. On 10.1.1995 the petitioner called on the officers concerned and submitted a letter. The same is as under :-
"Sub : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION.
I am in receipt of your letter No. 41187/DGQA/DRDO/CAO/Q1 at 5.1.95 requesting me to shift to the hired accommodation by 11th Jan 1995 failing which damage rent would be charged from the date of allotment till it is re allotted and occupied by another officer.
2. In this connection I would like to bring to your kind notice my appeal to Chairman Chief's of Staff Committee vide letter No. DMS/2021/Accn dated 7.10.94 a copy of which had been sent to your office (a copy attached) requesting to reconsider retirement/exchange of present accommodation as decided earlier by the Committee.
3. DRDO HQ letter No. WKS/34456/97/RD-28 dated 12.10.94 on this issue was also sent to your office (a copy attached) for your perusal to which no reply has been received.
4. Since there is no mention about the decision on my appeal to Chairman Chief's of Staff Committee on the above subject, I therefore request you to defer your allotment/vacation order till I hear finally about the outcome of my appeal.
Thanking you."
23. By letter dated 11.1.1995 the first respondent wrote to the petitioner stating :-
"Subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION.
Reference your application baring No. DMS/2021/Accn dated 09 Jan 1995 received on 10 Jan 1995.
2. In this connection it is stated that this office is not aware of the outcome of your appeal to Chairman Chief's of Staff committee forwarded through DGR&D. We have learnt from Secretary, Principal Supply Officers Committee that your appeal has not been received by the COSC Sectt.
3. In view of the above you are requested to shift to alternate accommodation offered by this office by the due date i.e. 11 Jan 95 failing which the matter will be reported to the Estate Officer to initiate proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971."
24. On 30.1.1995 the Quartering Officer passed the following order direct-ing the petitioner to pay penal rate of rent, which is challenged. The same is as under :-
UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION
1. The under-mentioned officers were required to vacate the Defense Pool regular accommodations occupied by them. They were allotted alternative hired accommodations. The details of the hired accommodation allotted and the date of allotment are men- tioned against their names :-
Ser Name of the Present Alternate Date of allot-Damages No. Officer accn ment of alter- Rate of---------------------------------- offered nate ccn. Rent P.M. ---------------------- (appx.) ----------------------------
(a) Brig. Rakesh 3/259, 1304/37 6.1.95 Rs. 6,344/-
Jha Arjun NOIDA Vihar
(b) Brig CM Khanna 194, L-123/25 5.1.95 Rs. 8,480/-
Dhaula NOIDA Kaun-II
(c) Lt. Col. SS 99-101, 208/28, 5.1.95 Rs. 6,450/- dahiya Jodhpur NOIDA Hostel
(d) Lt. Col RP 231, EA-427, G-8, 5.1.95 Rs. 7,661/-
Tripathi Dhaula Area, Rajouri Kaun-II Garden
(e) Lt. Col RK 3/29 H-200, Rajouri 5.1.95 Rs. 6,344/-
Marwah Arjun Garden
(f) Col. A Jena 234, A-2/193 (GF) 5.1.95 Rs. 7,661/-
Dhaula Janakpuri Kuan-II
2. Since the above officers have failed to take the alternate hired accommodation, you are requested to place them on damages rate of rent room the date of allotment of alternate hired accn and confirm action."
25. On 13.2.1995 writ petition was presented in this Court.
26. On 15.3.1995 a letter was taken from the petitioner. The letter is as under :-
"Sub : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION.
I am in occupation of regular Defense pool accommodation (Block 3/29 Arjun Vihar) which was duly allotted to me by CAO. Due to some change in policy I was issued a notice on 21 Sept 94 by CAO to vacate the quarter by 07 Oct 94. Since I am involved with various Endocrine Projects with AIIMS and Army Hospital, it will be very difficult for me to pursue with these projects if asked to vacate. I, therefore, request the SA to take up the case with Defense Secretary to permit me to continue in the same accommodation for a period one year i.e. up to 31 March 1996.
However, I will vacate the present premises by 30th April, 1995 if the permission to retain accommodation is not granted time. I will also take action to withdraw the case from the High Court.
27. On 4.4.1995 the Govt. of India wrote the following :-
"Sub : RETENTION OF DEFENSE POOL ACCOMMODATION BY PERMANENTLY SECONDED OFFICERS OF DRDO.
1. Further to this office note of even number dated 13.3.95 on the above subject.
2. The issue of retention of Defense Pool (DP) regular accommodations by permanently seconded officers of DRDO was reconsidered. In the light of the undertakings given by the concerned officers mentioned below, the Defense Secretary has granted special dispensation for retention of Defense Pool regular accommodation by them for the period noted against their names :-
(a) Vice Adm R. Kohli. On payment of damages rate of rent @ Rs. 12,784/- per month from 13.2.95 to 7.2.96 by DRDO. the officer will note entitled to retain Defense Pool accommodation beyond 7.2.96 for three months as per the Accommodation Rules after retirement.
(b) Brig CM Khanna Only upto
(c) Col A Jena 30.4.95 on
(d) Lt. Col RP Tripathi children
(e) Lt. Col R K Marwah education grounds, on payment of normal rate of rent.
3. It is requested that the officers concerned may be informed accordingly. DRDO may kindly arrange to pay the damages rate of rent at the rate mentioned above in the case of vice Admiral R. Kohli for the period from 13.2.95 to 7.2.96. DRDO will also ensure that the officers mentioned at serial Nos. (b) to (e) above vacate the accommodation by 30.4.95 and the officer at serial (a) above by 7.2.96, positively."
28. On 15.4.1995 the petitioner wrote to the Director General (third respondent) explaining his position withdrawing the letter dated 15.3.1995 on the ground that it was taken under duress.
29. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 25.4.1995 and the order is as under :
"We granted stay on 14th February, 1995 to the petitioner to continue at Flat No. 29, Block No. 3, (Third Floor), Arjun Vihar, New Delhi - 110010. Respondents have not filed the reply but this was perhaps of the fact that the petitioner had written a letter to the respondents on 15.3.1995 wherein he had agreed to vacate the premises by 30.4.1995 and he also undertook to withdraw the case from the High Court. But now petitioner's counsel says that on 15.4.1995 petitioner withdrew the letter dated 15.3.1995 as having been submitted under certain circumstances. It is contended before us that the letter dated 15.3.1995 was the result of coercion.
We would like the respondents to file their reply covering the subsequent events also. Let reply be filed within ten days. Respondents should also produce the file in Court on the next date of hearing.
Petitioner seeks time to file rejoinder. Let rejoinder be filed by the next date.
Adjourned to 23rd May, 1995."
30. I have referred to this letter at this stage because it is not a matter to be decided in the writ petition as the validity of the order dated 30.1.1995 is to be decided and the letter dated 15.3.1995 was after the filing of the writ petition.
31. The point involved is a very narrow one. It is common ground that the petitioner was recruited to AMC and was seconded to the third respondent owning to his qualifications. The original allotment in 1985 was as per the rules. The instructions came to be issued by the Govt. of India on 30.1.1990 challenging the whole system of allotment of flats to officers who had gone on secondent.
32. The respondents while trying to impalement the instructions issued by the Govt. of India on 30.1.1990 should have considered the rights of the professionally qualified people like the petitioner and should have considered the circumstances under which they are placed at that time and should have given an opportunity to explain their position and then should have issued orders to vacate the premises after providing suitable accommodation. The first respondent had acted as if the whole law had been changed on 30.1.1990 and the petitioner was bound to act in accordance with the instructions as if the allotment to the petitioner was made after issuance of the instructions on 30.1.1990. The petitioner without being able to resist the pressure from the respondents yielded and vacated the premises in November 1997. The whole basis of the order dated 30.1.1995 is that the petitioner was required to vacate the Defense Pool regular accommodation and did not occupy the hired accommodation allotted to him. The first respondent while issuing the order, as I have noticed above, had not acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and acted in unreason-able fashion. The petitioner had been making representation to the Govt. of India and the claim of the petitioner was supported by the third respondent and the first respondent wanted only equal number of flats being coming from the Pool of the third respondent and when that is so, the petitioner cannot be said to have violated any order passed by the first respondent warranting the issuance of levying penal rate of rent. The first respondent as a public authority is expected to act as a prudent person, who is properly instructed in law. The first respondent had assumed that the petitioner was guilty of disobeying the orders passed by the first respondent and, therefore, the first respondent was within its powers in directing the petitioner to pay penal rate of rate.
33. The facts narrated by me above would clearly show that the petitioner had been trying to persuade the first respondent to appreciate his position as a Doctor and when the petitioner is working in AIIMS and has to visit the Hospital he cannot be shifted to a far away place. The petitioner was also trying to impress upon the first respondent that he was engaged on behalf of the Govt. of India in a very important task and that required his being in Arjun Nagar instead being shifted to a place suggested by the first respondent. The order of the first respondent dated 30.1.1995 cannot at all be sustained in law and it is liable to be set aside.
34. Accordingly, the order dated 30.1.1995 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.