Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anand Kumar vs M/O Defence on 5 April, 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 3869/2017
This the 5th day of April, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
Shri Anand Kumar,
S/o Shri Chander Pal,
Qtr. No. T-1, No 4 Poultry Farm,
Delhi Cantt.
Aged 33 years, Group-B,
Working as JE (Civ.)
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Janak Raj Rana)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary ,
Ministry of Defence,
DHQ, PO,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Station Commander,
Station Headquarters,
Delhi Cantt.
3. Garrison Engineer (North),
Delhi Cantt.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Manjeet Singh Reen)
ORDER (ORAL)
Applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer in MES on 23.10.2010. He was allotted a Government accommodation on 16.08.2013. Applicant had occupied the same. 2 OA No.3869/2017 Applicant pleads that his wife is 40% visually challenged and she needs assistance of a lady servant. This lady servant lives in the same quarter for the whole of the day.
2. The applicant made a request on 28.07.2017 to the Garrison Engineer (North), who is incharge for the maintenance, to undertake maintenance in the said quarter as it needed major repairs. Instead, the respondents on 05.08.2017 alleged certain unauthorised construction and subletting in the said quarter and later on issued a show cause notice on 17.08.2017 indicating that a physical check of the quarter was done on 12.08.2017 which indicated unauthorised construction as well as subletting. Accordingly, it was followed by another letter dated 18.10.2017 wherein allotment of the said quarter had been cancelled.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant had preferred the instant OA, wherein interim stay on the operation of the letter dated 18.10.2017 was already granted.
4. The applicant relies upon the judgment by the Tribunal in OA No.2852/2014 delivered on 09.08.2016. This OA was in the context of one Sh. Yashpal Batra, who was working as Fitter General Mechanic under Station Commander, Station Headquarters, Delhi Cantt. This judgment is in the context of allegation of unauthorised construction in government 3 OA No.3869/2017 quarter, following which allotment was cancelled. This cancellation was quashed on the reasoning that it is not clear as to when this unauthorised construction came into being and in any case it was already dismantled.
5. The respondents opposed the OA pleading that unauthorised construction was done in the said quarter which was estimated to cost about Rs. 25 lakhs and the quarter was also unauthorizedly subletted. Accordingly, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and Rule 16 & 17 of SRO 308/78, the respondents had taken the appropriate action of cancelling the allotment.
It was pleaded that OA is required to be dismissed.
6. Matter has been heard at length.
7. It is seen that inspection of the said quarter is stated to have taken place on 12.08.2017 whereas letter dated 05.08.2017 was already issued alleging unauthorised construction and subletting. This indicates a pre-conceived notion.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in WP (C) No.585/1994 titled S.S.Tiwari vs. Union of India and others decided on 29.11.1996 have directed for a standard procedure to carry out inspection in such cases.
4 OA No.3869/2017
In respect of such complaints, certain procedures are also specified as to how the inspection is to be done and who all have to accompany and be part of such inspection, so that authenticity of such inspection does not come into question.
9. In the instant case, factum of issuing letter alleging unauthorised construction and subletting occurred on 05.08.2017 itself whereas as per respondents' letter dated 17.08.2017, inspection took place on 12.08.2017.
In view of this, the authenticity of such an inspection and follow up action, wherein cancellation of allotment was done vide letter issued dated 18.10.2017, cannot be accepted as without prejudice.
10. The cancellation letter dated 18.10.2017 is, therefore, quashed. Respondents, however, have liberty to carry out the inspection of the quarter, as per specified procedure, issue a report with a copy to the applicant seeking his explanation, in case of malfeasance, and take further necessary action.
11. In view of the foregoing, OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
( Pradeep Kumar ) Member (A) 'sd'