Delhi District Court
Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs Estate Officer on 17 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
PPA No. 02/2020
CNR No. DLWT01-004878-2020
In re:
Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia
Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Jodhpur (Audit)
R/o. A-2-D, Vatika Apartments,
Mayapuri, Delhi. ....... Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer
Additional Commissioner (Estate),
CGST, Delhi North,
Central Revenue Building,
I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110019 ..... Respondent
Date of filing of the appeal : 22.10.2020
Date of arguments : 30.01.2021
Date of judgment : 17.02.2021
Appearances:
Mr. Dalip Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide an appeal filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the 'PP Act'), whereby the appellant has assailed the orders dated 08.09.2020 and 27.01.2020 passed by the Estate Officer, in the office of the Principal PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 1 of 32 Commissioner, GST North Delhi, Central Revenue Building via File C. No. I-4/(17) Estate Complaint/2019/5116 under sub-section 1 of Section 5 of the PP Act by virtue of which the appellant has been directed to vacate the subject premises and pay 40 times of revised License Fee as per OM No. 18011/2/2006-Pol.III dated 04.06.2013 and OM No. 12035/2/2020-Pol.II dated 05.05.2020 and 25.03.2020.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. In a nutshell, it is the case of the appellant that he is an Indian Revenue Service Officer (Customs and Central Excise) of 2012 batch and on 01.02.2018, on getting transferred from Lucknow to New Delhi, he was allocated departmental pool residential accommodation at Quarter No. A-2-D, Vatika Apartments, Mayapuri, New Delhi, hereinafter referred as the 'subject premises' where he moved into with his parents aged 71 and 66 years alongwith a dependent widow sister and her 10 years old dependent niece. It is the case of the appellant that in the midst of 2018, another junior Officer from the Indian Revenue Service came to reside in the same housing complex as his neighbour, who allegedly started pursuing his widowed sister and when such efforts were resisted, the said junior Officer mis-behaved with his sister and also with their mother with regard to which a police complaint was lodged by him on 06.09.2019.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that on 17.09.2019, he received a notice from Shri Alok Jha, Additional Commissioner (Estate) calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be directed to PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 2 of 32 vacate the residential accommodation/subject premises and be declared ineligible for any further allocation of departmental residential quarters. It is stated that the said letter dated 17.09.2019 was not only issued in blatant violation of all the service rules and regulations regarding residential quarter retention preceded by a bogus investigation initiated by the respondent against him, which involved taking sham testimonies of the washer man, ironman, guard, drivers and even the DJB water / meter readers of the residential locality, while the genuine grievances of his aggrieved sister and mother of the appellant were not taken into consideration.
4. To cut the long story short, he filed a reply dated 01.10.2019 calling upon the authority concerned to apprise the provisions under the law vide which eviction proceedings were initiated and all of a sudden, the appellant was abruptly and out of turn transferred from New Delhi to Jodhpur vide transfer order dated 22.10.2019 in gross violation of the "Transfer Placement Guidelines for the Officers of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise)"; and that on 30.10.2019, the appellant submitted a representation against his unwarranted and out of turn transfer but he was abruptly relieved from his last place of posting at ICD Tughlaqabad (Exports), New Delhi on 19.11.2019; and that on 21.11.2019, he filed an O.A. bearing No. 3372/2019 with the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi; and that the same was disposed off with the directions to the appellant to join his new place of posting at Jodhpur and with further direction to the Department for issuing a 'Reasoned and PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 3 of 32 Speaking Order' after receiving and considering a fresh representation from the appellant.
5. It is stated that though on 09.12.2019 he submitted a fresh representation but the same was dismissed without assigning any reasons vide order dated 08.01.2020; and that on 09.01.2020, he submitted another representation for retention of his residential quarter/subject premises at New Delhi but on the same day, he was served with an Eviction notice directing him to vacate his residential accommodation by 19.01.2020; and that he submitted another protest representation dated 17.01.2020 to the Department but again the same was rejected vide letter dated 17.01.2020; and that on 27.01.2020, he was served with another notice purportedly u/s 4 of the PP Act by the respondent - Addl. Commissioner CGST Delhi (North)(It was again Shri Alok Jha). It is stated that the appellant submitted another letter requesting for retention of his residential quarter/subject premises on 31.01.2020 citing the Standing Order issued vide F. No. 213/7/2006-Ad.VII (EC) dated 05.02.2007 and 25.04.2008; and that he further submitted a reply on 07.02.2020 to the Eviction Notice dated 27.01.2020 under the PP Act.
6. The appellant is aggrieved that the impugned 'Eviction Order' u/s 5(1) of the PP Act dated 14.02.2020 was issued by Shri Alok Jha, Addl. Commissioner (Estate), CGST, New Delhi; and that the appellant submitted another request letter dated 11.03.2020 for retention of residential quarter/subject premises for favourably PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 4 of 32 considering matter of retention till one month after the completion of his little girl's (sister's daughter) final examination for the year 2020. It is stated that on 15.07.2020 after a lapse of about four months, the appellant received a letter from the respondent that he could retain the accommodation for two more weeks on the ground of completion of his niece's final examination in March since the lock down due to the Pandemic COVID-19 had already been lifted from Delhi since 08.06.2020. It is stated that the respondent submitted a reply on 10.08.2020 but the respondent deliberately and knowingly ignored the provisions of 'Unlock 3.0 Guidelines' issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on 29.07.2020, whereby persons above 65 years of age with co-morbidities had been advised to stay at home; and that thereafter, to his surprise, his monthly House Rent Allowance (HRA) was abruptly stopped w.e.f. 01.09.2020. It is stated that on 08.09.2020, he was served with the impugned notice calling upon him to pay 40 times the revised license fee from 01.06.2020 till the vacation of his residential accommodation in New Delhi. Hence, this appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned orders.
7. Notice of the present appeal was ordered to be issued to the respondent and vide order dated 26.10.2020 and it was directed that no coercive action be taken against the appellant.
REPLY TO THE PRESENT APPEAL
8. The respondent has filed reply to the present appeal refuting the allegations made in the appeal. The respondent has also PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 5 of 32 placed on the record the original record of the Estate Officer. The respondent in their reply has interalia taken preliminary objections to the effect that the appeal is barred by limitation and although an application for condonation of delay has been filed, the same is not pressed and the present appeal is not maintainable. In the alternative, it is stated that the appellant had sought time till May/June, 2020 to vacate the premises but instead of complying with his undertaking, he has preferred a time barred appeal against the order dated 14.02.2020, which cannot be entertained. It is further stated that there were numerous complaints against the appellant and his family members from his colleagues, who were residing in the same Colony; and that due to the further unlawful retention of official accommodation, there has been huge wastage of money from the public exchequer as the unoccupied flats had been renovated and refurnished by spending huge money on them; and thus, the appellant cannot be allowed to retain the official accommodation without payment of licence fee and can further enjoy the facility of HRA on his transfer to Jodhpur. It is also stated that retention period of departmental pool accommodation upon transfer of an official from one station to another station is only two months and in any case, the appellant has succeeded in retaining the possession over a period of one year beyond the time he claimed in terms of his undertaking in various letters referred above.
9. In so far as the reply on merits are concerned, which is filed by Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Joint Commissioner, the respondent has chosen to venture into the history of dispute between the appellant PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 6 of 32 and his colleagues, who were residing in the same neighbourhood delving into the history of quarrels, allegations and counter allegations as between the appellant and his colleagues from the neighbourhood, especially with regard to certain incidents of multiple instances of abuse and altercations with Ms. Meghaa Gupta resident of A-2/F; Mr. Neeraj Meena resident of A-2/E; and Mr.S. Mahesh Kumar resident of A-2/B besides altercations with security guards. It further delves into the alleged altercation of the appellant with Mr. Sumit Garg, Ex-resident of A-2 Block, who allegedly had to vacate the official accommodation in the said building due to the disturbances created by the appellant and his family members.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
10. The appellant has assailed the impugned orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Estate), CGST, Delhi North for being arbitrary, wrong and unjustified, and issued in pursuance of "personal vendetta" against the appellant and his family members and passed without application of 'judicious mind'; and on the ground that the Estate Officer failed to appreciate the genuine and valid grounds for retaining the official accommodation upon his transfer and passing the impugned order misquoting and ill-conceiving the CBIC's order dated 05.02.2007 and 25.04.2008 issued vide F. No. 213/7/2006-Ad.VII(EC) and 213/15/2008-Ad.VII(EC) respectively in this regard; and that the notice dated 27.01.2020 was passed in a malafide manner by the Estate Officer; and the impugned orders are further assailed on the ground that the order dated 15.07.2020 and 10.09.2020 have been PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 7 of 32 passed in clear violation of circulars and orders by the Government of India with respect to containment of spread of COVID-19 Pandemic in the country; and it is further assailed on the ground that his House Rent Allowance (HRA) has been withheld in an arbitrary, unfair and illegal manner.
DECISION ON THE APPEAL
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the parties at the Bar. I have also perused the record of the present appeal and the original record of the Ld. Estate Officer produced before the Court.
12. There is no gainsaying that in the instant appeal, this Appellate Court is examining the correctness and legality of orders passed u/s 5 as also u/s. 7 of the PP Act. In order to decide the instant appeal, it would be expedient to refer to the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the PP Act, which read as under :-
"4.Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.--
(1) If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
(2) The notice shall--
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and [(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises,--
(i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof; and PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 8 of 32
(ii) to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.] (3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned."
5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants. - [(1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer shall make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order but not later than fifteen days from the date of the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises:
Provided that every order under this sub-section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), as the case may be, of section 4.] (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction [on or before, the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under sub-section (1), whichever is later,] the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf [may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period, aforesaid, whichever is latter, evict that person] from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.
[Provided that if the estate officer is satisfied, for reasons to tbe recorded in writing, that there exists any compelling reason which prevents the person from vacating the premises within fifteen days, the estate officermay grant anothr fifteendays from the date of expirty of the order under sub-section (1) to teh person to vacate the premiss]"
PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 9 of 3213. It is a settled proposition that the PP Act is a special enactment for eviction of 'unauthorized occupants' from 'public premises' in a summary manner. As per Section 4 of the PP Act, a notice to show cause against the unauthorized occupant of any public premises is required to be issued by the Estate Officer. As per Section 5 of the PP Act, after considering the cause shown and evidence if any produced by the alleged unauthorized occupant, the Estate Officer on being satisfied that the person was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises, an eviction order is required to be passed by the Estate Officer, requiring all persons to vacate the public premises. Unauthorized occupation as per Section 2(g) of the PP Act means "the occupation by any person who has entered into occupation of any premises without lawful authority as well as occupation which was permissive without lawful authority as well as occupation which was permissive at the inception but has ceased to be so". The second part of the definition is inclusive in nature and it expressly covers continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any person whatsoever. This part covers a case where a person had entered into occupation legally under valid authority but, who continues in occupation after the authority under which he was put in occupation has expired or has been determined.
14. In view of aforesaid proposition of law, reverting back to the instant case, while apparently the appellant is occupying the PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 10 of 32 subject premises by all accounts as an "unauthorised occupant", there is more to the story than to meet the eyes. It is manifest that the genesis of the whole matters stems from the impugned notice dated 17.09.2019, which reads as under:-
"C. No. I-4(17) Estate/Complaint/2019/10164 dated 17.09.2019 NOTICE WHEREAS Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia (IRA:2012) Deputy Commissioner, presently posted at ICD, Export Commissionerate, Tughlakabad, New Delhi was allotted departmental Quarter No. A-2/D in Central Government Officers Flats at Mayapuri, New Delhi by the Additional Commissioner vide allotment letter C. No. I-4(116) Estate/A- 2/D/Mayapuri/2017/13354-55 dated 28.11.2017 Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family members are residing in Quarter No. A-2/D of the departmental quarters in Mayapuri, New Delhi.
2. WHEREAS Ms. Meghaa Gupta (IRS:2015), Assistant Commissioner posted in GST Policy Wing and Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar (IRS:2015), Under Secretary, posted in GST Council Secretariat vide their letters dated 06.09.2019 made filed written complaint addressed to the Principal Commissioner, Delhi North Commissionerate, Central Tax, New Delhi against Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Commissioner and his family, residing in Quarter No. A-2/D of the department allocated quarters in Mayapuri. Ms. Meghaa Gupta and Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar are residing in A-2/F and A-2/B respectively in department allocated quarters at Mayapuri.
2.1 It has been inter-alia alleged in the said complaint letters that on the night of 3rd September, 2019, Mr. Manmeet Singh and his family which includes officer's mother and sister were involved in verbal abuse against the officers; that Mr. Manmeet Singh's sister has threatened to file false complaint of sexual harassment against Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar. Further Mr.Manmeet Singh's sister has also made derogatory remarks against the lady officer Ms. Meghaa Gupta which are unmentionable and beyond any limits of decency.
3. WHEREAS it appears from the complaint letters from the affected officers. It appears that around 8.30 PM on 03.09.2019 when Mr. Manmeet's sister and mother suggested locking the PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 11 of 32 common access door to the common terrace, Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar requested them not to. This request invited verbal abuses from both the mother and the sister of Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia. Ms. Meghaa Gupta who also resides in the same A-2 block on top floor, on listening to hurling of abuses by Mr. Manmeet Singh's sister towards Mr. Mahesh came to advise Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar to disengage. Following her intervention, these women started abusing the lady officer and further, did not allow Mr. Mahesh Kumar to go down to his house on the ground floor by blocking the staircase for more than two hours. After making calls, sending messages on Colony's WhatsApp group, Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar was escorted downstairs by other residents of the colony, Mr. Kumar Asim Anand (A-6/B) and Mr.Heeralal Poonia (A-6/D). It is mentioned in the said complaints that the officer Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia was inside the house and was instigating his mother and sister to obstruct Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar's way who wanted to go downstairs to his house. He also did not stop or make any attempt to discourage his mother and sister from abusing and threatening Ms. Meghaa Gupta and Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar. Highly offensive and disturbing language was used against both the officers. It also appears thar Mr. Manmeet's Singh's sister had singled out the affected lady officer and defamed her in the public. She also questioned the lady officer's character. Details of all such offensive language has been written in detail by the lady officer in her complaint. Mr. Manmeet Singh's sister also made objectionable remarks on the disability of the male officer. He was abused and threatened with a malicious, false complaint of sexual harassment. This incident forced Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar to leave his quarters that night itself and take shelter in the Quarters of the other officer, Mr. Kumar Asim Anand.
3.1 The highly objectionable abuses and use of vulgar language continued on the morning of 4th September, 2019 at around 9.30 am, when Ms. Meghaa Gupta was coming down to go to office. Mr. Manmeet Singh's mother instructed her daughter to obstruct the lady officer's way and then again openly abused her. The mother also openly threatened the lady officer that she would make her life hell in A-2 block. It is stated in the complaint letter of Ms. Meghaa Gupta that at that point, there were maids, drivers, security guard of the colony and Mr. Kumar Asim Anand (A-6/B) who were witnesses to this incident.
4. WHEREAS following the incident, the affected officers have filed a complaint at the Rajouri Garden Police Station in PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 12 of 32 respect of the incident that occurred on the night of 3 rd September, 2019 and in the morning of 4th September, 2019. due to the threat of physical violence of imminent nature, the officers had to get their belongings from their houses under police escort and temporarily vacate their quarters. The affected officers are at present staying in NACIN, hostel ay Mayapuri.
5. WHEREAS the Vatika Apartments 'A' Block Central Government Officers Residents Welfare Association took cognizance of the incident and called for an urgent meeting on 5th September, 2019. The Association had in detail discussed the said incidents. In addition, the Association was apprised of various other altercations and multiple abuses committed by Mr.Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family which occurred in the past.
5.1 The RWA in its meeting dated 5th September 2019, deliberated on the complaints submitted to it by the affected officers and observed that the incident has forced both the officers to leave their quarters under police escort and to shift in the NACIN Guest House immediately, with no fault of them. During the deliberation the members also brought to the notice of the past incidents, as mentioned below :
(i) Multiple instances of abuse and altercations with Ms.Meghaa Gupta, resident of A-2/F.
(ii) Instances of abuse and altercation with Mr. Neeraj Meena, resident of A-2/E.
(iii) Abuse and false allegations, comments on disability of Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar, resident of A-2/B.
(iv) Altercation with security guards.
(v) Instances of altercations with Mr. Sumit Garg, Ex-
resident of A-2 block, who had to vacate the building because of the disturbances created by the said family.
(vi) Misbehaviour with Jal Board officials.
5.2 The RWA observed that such behaviour of Sh. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family members is completely unacceptable and pose a serious threat to the cohesion and harmony of the colony. Further, the RWA recognized that there is an immediate danger to the personal safety of the officers residing in the vicinity.
6. WHEREAS noting that the fights and misbehaviour of the Ahluwalia family were becoming increasingly intolerable, the PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 13 of 32 RWA unanimously passed a resolution that the allotment of quarter to Sh.Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia, resident of Q. No. A- 2/D must be cancelled immediately and also requested the Pr. Commissioner of Central Taxes, Delhi (North) to order the immediate eviction of the said family.
7. WHEREAS on receipt of the letter containing the resolution, dated 6th September, 2019 from Residents welfare association, the Principal Commissioner directed to conduct an independent Inquiry Committee to corroborate the incidents mentioned in the complaint letters. An independent Inquiry Committee headed by Sh. Ephrem Horo, Assistant commissioner (Estates) assisted by Sh. Naresh Kumar, Superintendent and Sh. Yatan Sharma, Inspector was constituted. They were mandated to enquire into the veracity of the complaints from independent witnesses.
8.1 WHEREAS the Committee members visited the Vatika Apartments, Mayapuri to investigate the issue on 7th September, 2019. The Committee arrived in NACIN, guest house at Mayapuri, and noted that the affected officers, Ms. Meghaa Gupta & Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar were staying in NACIN, Guest House since 4th September, 2019. The date of arrival was cross checked from NACIN guest register.
8.2 The Committee then spoke to both the affected officers. Both the officers narrated the incidents in detail individually before the committee. They were cross questioned to ascertain certain facts. The Committee noted that the officers were visibly disturbed and distressed by the events of the 3 rd and 4th September, 2019.
8.3 Then Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar played an audio which was recorded on the night of 3rd September. The audio had the voide of a lady who identified herself as Khushboo Ahluwalia (the sister of Sh.Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia) yelling in a very disturbing manner. The lady threatened both the officers and had passed extremely disturbing comments, abuses all the while maligning the characters of the officers.
8.4 In the said audio, the lady has used highly objectionable words life "Prostitute" against lady officer Ms. Meghaa Gupta multiple times. She was also heard threatening the affected officers with serious physical violence. She had also threatened the Sh. S. Mahesh Kumar and dared him to try and go his house. The audio also contained highly abusive language, PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 14 of 32 maligning the character of the affected officers. The Committee took possession of the digital copy of the said recording.
8.5 The Committee also took into account the written complaint of Mr. Sumit Garg, Ex-resident of A-2 block who had faced similar difficulties from the officer Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family. The ex-resident Mr. Sumit Garg had addressed his complaint to RWA's General Secretary, who had faced various housekeeping issues during his stay in A-2 block with the occupants of A-2/D Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwaliua and his family. Instances like obstructing Mr. Sumit Garg and his family access to common terrace as they were living on ground floor A-2/A and incidents of altercations & verbal abuses from Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family were stated in the written complaint. Mr. Sumit Garg and his family had to vacate their quarters the building primarily because of the disturbances created by the said Officer & his family.
8.6 The Committee had met Resident Welfare Association's General Secretary Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj in NACIN, Hostel, Mayapuri. The Committee was apprised of a past incident that had happened with Mr. Neeraj Meena, resident of A-2/E wherein the officer & his family had multiple abuses and altercation with officer Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family. In addition to this, Committee was also apprised that officers staying in A-1 & A-3 blocks (two adjacent blocks to A-2) are quite disturbed and anguished with the nuisance created by Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family. The officers living in adjacent blocks are perturbed by the disturbing language used by the officer & his family during altercations with fellow residents of A-2 block.
8.7 The Committee then went around the colony to record statements of the witnesses. While doing so Committee across the driver of Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia. The driver narrated that his car had a break down forcing him to park the car in the parking space in front of A-2 block. The driver had complained that Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia has misbehaved with him and threatened him with suspension. Further, the driver also alleged that Mr. Manmeet had been continuously misbehaving with him in the past too.
8.8. The Committee took the statement of the security guard Sh. Raj Kumar about the incident. He confirmed that the mother and sister of Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia had obstructed Ms. Meghaa Gupta on her way down the stairs on PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 15 of 32 the morning of 4th September 2019 and hurled abuses.
8.9 The Committee also took the statement of Ironman/Washerman Mr. Ram Singh who works near A-7 block. He usually visits A-2 block to give and take iron clothes. In one such instance, Ram Singh told that while going to A-2/F apartment, he was stopped on his way & Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia had misbehaved with him. Mr. ram Singh mentioned that he was abused and was threatened to be slapped.
8.10 The Committee further took the statement of Sh. Ram Sujan (Rinku), another driver. He has confirmed that on that morning, both the mother and the sister of Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia had obstructed the way of Ms. Meghaa Gupta in front of A-2/D, and also threatened her as well as abused her in a highly offensive language. He stated that the women had also hurled abuses at Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar.
8.11 The Committee took the statement of Mr. Pawan Gupta an official from Delhi Jal Board. Mr. Pawan Gupta have also complained against the officer Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family that they didn't let him check their water meter and hence he wasn't able to generate water bill. Further, he was called "thief" and was hurled with abuses by Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia &his family members.
8.12 The Committee has also asked two witnesses Mr. Kumar Asim Anand (resident of A-6/B) & Mr. Heera Lal Poonia (resident of A-6/D). They have submitted the detailed record of what they saw and heard on night of 3 rd September, 2019 & on morning of 4th September, 2019. From both the statements, the facts can be corroborated that Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia's Sister and Mother on the night of 3 rd September 2019 as well on next morning have verbally abused Ms. Meghaa Gupta & Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar. They were ridiculed by these women while Mr. Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia was inside the house. They have threatened the said officers and also used highly objectionable and deplorable language against both officers. There were comments on the appearance as well as disability of male officer while lady officer was subjected to derogatory remarks on her character and appearance too.
9. WHEREAS on the basis of the complaint letters dated 06.09.2019 received from Ms. Meghaa Gupta (IRS:2015), Assistant Commissioner, posted in GST Policy Wing and Mr. S. Mahesh Kumar (IRS:2015), Under Secretary, posted in GST PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 16 of 32 Council Secretariat; Resolution letter dated 6th September, 2019 from Vatika Apartments 'A' Block Central Government Officers Residents Welfare Association and the independent enquiry report of the Committee headed by Shri Ephrem Horo, Assistant Commissioner (Estates), C. R. Building, New Delhi, it appears that Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia Deputy Commissioner, posted at ICD, Export Commissionerate, Tughlakabad, New Delhi and his family, allottee of Quarter No. A-2/D of the departmental quarters in Mayapuri, New Delhi had picked up a quarrel with his neighbours in the locality, which amounts to behaviour unbecoming of an officer.
10. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and circumstances therein, you are called upon to show cause to Additional Commissioner (Estate), Room No. 120, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi within a period of seven days from the receipt of this notice as to why the allotment of Quarter No. A-2/D of the departmental quarters in Mayapuri, New Delhi in your name should not be cancelled with immediate effect and further as to why you should not be declared ineligible for further allotment of accommodation.
11. WHEREAS you may also note that this notice is issued without prejudice to any other disciplinary action that may be taken against you.
Sd/-
(Alok Jha) Additional Commissioner (Estate) CGST Delhi North"
15. A bare perusal of the contents of the aforesaid notice would show that the gravamen of charges against the appellant with regard to the contemplated action were in respect to certain disputes and quarrels between the appellant supported by his mother and sister on one hand and the occupants of other official residential flats in the same complex viz., S. Mahesh Kumar besides one Ms. Meghaa Gupta. The said notice gives a vivid account of alleged highly objectionable conduct on the part of the appellant and his family members as against the other officials of the same department, and the latter being PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 17 of 32 supported by the Residents Welfare Association. The said notice was replied by the appellant vide representation dated 01.10.2019 refuting the allegations levelled in the notice and coming out with his own versions of the incidents.
16. It is a matter of record that the representation/reply dated 01.10.2019 did not find favour with Shri Alok Jha, Additional Commissioner (Estate), and ultimately the appellant was transferred to Jodhpur vide transfer order dated 22.10.2019. Indeed I could agree no more with the submission of Mr. Aggarwala, ld. Counsel for the respondent that it is not for this Court to go into the allegations and the counter allegations levelled in the said show cause notice. I can not but agree that since the allegations of bias and arbitrary exercise of powers were espoused by the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi and it did not weigh much in the order dated 22.11.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OM No. 3372/2019, hence this Court should not embark to comment upon it. All said and done, the appellant was granted an opportunity to make a fresh representation to the Department on account of his family commitment and hardship, and therefore, in so far as the subsequent events are concerned that can be considered by this Court.
17. To cut the long story short, the representation preferred by the appellant was rejected vide letter bearing reference C. No. I- 4(17)/Estate/Complaint/2019/693 dated 17.01.2020 and another show cause notice bearing reference C. No. I-PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 18 of 32
4(17)Estate/Complaint/2019/977 dated 27/28.01.2020 was issued by Mr. Alok Jha, Additional Commissioner (Estate), CGST Delhi North, whereby the appellant was held to be "unauthorised occupant" for having been transferred outside Delhi and thus being not entitled to retain the occupation of the subject premises. This time the entire history of feud with the colleagues and alleged acts of misconduct were very conveniently skipped. As the story unfolds, ultimately the Eviction order dated 14.02.2020 was passed, which reads as under :-
"C.No.I-4(17)/Estate/Complaint/2019/1615 Dated 14.02.2020 EVICTION ORDER WHEREAS, Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia (IRS:2012) Deputy Commissioner, presently posted at Jodhpur CGST & CX (Audit) Commissionerate, was allotted department Quarter No. A-2/D in Central Government Officers Flats at Mayapuri, New Delhi by the Additional Commissioner vide allotment letter C. No.I-4(116)Estate / A-2 / D / Mayapuri /2017 / 13354-55 dated 28.11.2017. Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia and his family are residing in Quarter No. A-2/D of the departmental quarters in Mayapuri, New Delhi.
2. WHEREAS, Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia was relieved for Jodhpur GST and CX Zone, Jaipur vide C.No. VIII/ICD/TKD/Exp/Estt./T&P/Gr.A/48/19 dated 19.11.2019. The retention period of departmental pool accommodation upon transfer of an officer from one station to another station, is 02 months with normal license fee. The two months period was to complete on 18.10.2020. Accordingly, this office sent a notice to Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vide letter dated 09.01.2020 for vacating the government accommodation prior to 19.01.2020.
3. WHEREAS Shri Manmeet Ahluwalia vide letter dated 09.01.2020 requested to retain Government accommodation till May, 2020.
4. WHEREAS, this office vide even No. 693 dated 17.01.2020 communicated to Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia about rejection of his request for further retention of residential quarter No. A-2/D, Vatika Apartment, Mayapuri, New Delhi by PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 19 of 32 the competent authority. Therefore, retention of the said residential premises by Shri Manmeet Ahluwalia after 18.01.2020 appears to be unauthorised occupation of public premises.
5. WHEREAS, Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the estate officer has issued a notice vide even No. 977 dated 28.01.2020 calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia did not appear before the undersigned for personal hearing within 7 days from the receipt of the notice. Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vide letter dated 07.02.2020 informed that his reply to eviction notice dated 31.01.2020 shall be taken as reply to show cause notice and he has nothing more to add.
6. WHEREAS, Rule 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1971 stipulates that -
"Rule 5. Eviction of unauthorized occupants.--5[(1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 4, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer shall make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order but not later than fifteen days from the date of the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises: Provided that every order under this sub-section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice under sub-section (1) or sub- section (1A), as the case may be, of section 4.] (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction [on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under sub-
section(1),whichever is later,] the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf [may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person] from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary."
PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 20 of 327. WHEREAS, Shri Manmeet Ahluwalia was entitled to retain the said premises only until 18.01.2020 and whereas his request for retention dated 09.01.2020 has been rejected vide letter dated 17.01.2020, retention of the premises thereafter by him appears to be unauthorised occupation, and whereas he failed to appear in person to show cause to the notice dated 28.01.2020 as to why the allotment of Quarter No. A-2/D of the departmental quarter in Mayapuri, New Delhi in his name should not be cancelled though vide letter dated 07.02.2020 he informed that this reply dated 31.01.2020 eviction notice be taken as reply to show cause notice, he did not produce any evidence in support of his claim for retention and accordingly he appears to have rendered himself liable to be issued an order of eviction under Rule 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Un- authorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
8. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and circumstances therein, Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia is ordered to evict the unauthorized occupancy of Quarter No. A- 2/D of the departmental quarter at Vatika Apartments, Mayapuri, New Delhi prior to 29.02.2020 positively.
9. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
Sd/-
(Alok Jha) Additional Commissioner (Estate) CGST Delhi North"
18. This was followed by another request by the appellant vide letter dated 11.03.2020 seeking extension for retention of the subject premises for one month after the completion of the final examination of daughter of his dependent sister i.e., till May,2020. Now this Court could very well take cognizance of the fact that sometime in the last week of March 2020, the Central and State Government " brought up and enforced Lock down-01" measures at different levels of social and economic spheres including various governmental functions and activities. The appellant has placed on the record an Office PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 21 of 32 Memorandum issued by the Government of Directorate of Estates, Policy-II Section, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi dated 25.03.2020 whereby to contain the spread of COVID-19 virus, a directive was issued to allow the Government employees suo moto retention for the period from 17.03.2020 to 31.05.2020 for all such allottee under the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation (CGGPRA) Rules, 2017 inter alia also recommending consideration of Rule 40 which provides for concessional period of retention of official accommodation. It was further provided that "such relaxation would be applicable to those who have been in "unauthorized occupation" of Government flat before 17.03.2020, also clarifying that after 31.05.2020, the damage charges at telescopic rates, as was continuing prior to the lock down period, will be resumed".
19. This was followed by another Office Memorandum of the Government of India, Directorate of Estates, Policy-II Section, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi dated 05.05.2020, and suffice to point out that the extension of retention of residential quarters was allowed till 30.06.2020. It is pertinent to mention that Part-IV under the title 'Retention of Accommodation' under the 'CGGPRA; vide Rule 40 provides vide item No. III that "in case of transfer to an outside place from the existing place, transfer to an ineligible office in the same station, or on proceeding on foreign service in India, temporary transfer in India or transfer to a place outside India or deputation within India"; AND PROVIDING THAT "the permissible period of retention of accommodation is two months on normal licence fee PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 22 of 32 plus six months on double licence fee".
20. To cut the long story short, there were further directives from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs extending the lock down up to 31.07.2020 vide order dated 29.06.2020, and thereafter the Lock down measures were further extended up to 31.08.2020 vide order dated 29.07.2020. This was followed by another directive dated 29.07.2020 enumerating the activities that were relaxed vide the "Unlock-4" period up to 30.09.2020 inter alia mandating safeguards vide Clause 7 for protection of vulnerable persons, which reads that "Persons above 65 years of age, persons with co- morbidities, pregnant women and children below the age of 10 years are advised to stay at home, except for essential and health purposes".
21. Well, if the aforesaid sequence of events is construed in a beneficial manner so as to advance the cause of justice, it goes to show that the appellant was supposed to comply with the impugned notice dated 14.02.2020 by vacating the subject premises on or before 29th February, 2020 and thereafter he could have retained the accommodation for two months on payment of nominal charges. In other words, it is clearly manifest that when the Lock down measures were introduced in the last week of March, 2020, the appellant was an unauthorised occupant but could retain the accommodation till 30 th April, 2020 on payment of nominal charges. In view of the Lockdown measures, the appellant acquired the suo moto legal right to occupy or PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 23 of 32 retain the official accommodation till 30.09.2020.
22. If that was the case, the Additional Commissioner (Estate) is caught on a wrong foot. Without any further ado, I have no hesitation in holding that the appellant has not been dealt with in a fair, impartial and judicious manner by the Additional Commissioner (Estate) and it appears that Mr. Alok Jha has been hell bent in teaching 'a lesson or two' to the appellant. His whole disposition towards the appellant seems to be a personal vendetta. This is not only fortified from the contents of the initial notice dated 17.09.2019 but also from the tone and tenor of the reply submitted by the respondent in the present appeal, wherein paragraph (9) to (33) have been extensively devoted on the alleged disputes and quarrel between the appellant and the other co-officials. This clearly appears to be a case of malafide and arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the Additional Commissioner (Estate) concerned and the impugned Eviction order clearly suffers from vice of malafide and based on extraneous consideration, where ex facie he has chosen to believe the allegations against the appellant on its face value.
23. There is no gainsaying that in a society governed by the rule of law, fair play is one of the basic ingredients of which absence of any personal or official bias is the cornerstone. In the classic decision in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 , the need of "fair play" or "fair hearing" in quasi-judicial and administrative matters was categorically laid down. Not only the hearing but also a decision by a PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 24 of 32 quasi judicial authority has to arrived at with an unbiased mind. In an earlier decision in Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 468, it was held that the Revenue Minister, who had cancelled the petitioner's licence or the lease of certain land, could not have taken part in the proceedings for cancellation of licence as there was political rivalry between the petitioner and the Minister, who had also filed a criminal case against the petitioner. The maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa was invoked in Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 10 SCC 641, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to hold that it may not be possible to give proof of actual bias at times. There are many ways to discover the same and the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"Bias, as pointed out earlier, is a condition of mind and, therefore, it may not always be possible to furnish actual proof of bias. But the courts, for this reason, cannot be said to be in a crippled state. There are many ways to discover bias; for example, by evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case or applying the tests of "real likelihood of bias" or "reasonable suspicion of bias". De Smith in Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 1980 Edn., pp. 262, 264, has explained that "reasonable suspicion" test looks mainly to outward appearances while "real likelihood" test focuses on the court's own evaluation of the probabilities. (paragraph 33).
In Metropolitan Properties Co. v. Lannon, (1968) 1 WLR 815 it was observed that "whether there was a real likelihood of bias or not has to be ascertained with reference to right-minded persons; whether they would consider that there was a real likelihood of bias". Almost the same test has also been applied here in an old decision, namely, in Manak Lal v. Dr Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425. In that case, although the Court found that the Chairman of the Bar Council Tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court to enquire into the misconduct of Manak Lal, an Advocate, on the complaint of one Prem Chand was not biased towards him, it was held that he should not have presided over the proceedings to give effect to the salutary principle that justice PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 25 of 32 should not only be done, it should also be seen to be done in view of the fact that the Chairman, who, undoubtedly, was a Senior Advocate and an ex-Advocate General, had, at one time, represented Prem Chand in some case. These principles have had their evaluation in the field of administrative law but the courts performing judicial functions only cannot be excepted from the rule of bias as the Presiding Officers of the court have to hear and decide contentious issues with an unbiased mind. (Paragraph 34)"
24. Likewise, in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, (2001) 1 SCC 182, the Supreme Court went into the same controversy and referred to the fact that the doctrine of natural justice implies that it is not to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. It was held:-
"The word "bias" in popular English parlance stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word "malice", which in common acceptation means and implies "spite" or "ill- will" (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn., Vol. 3) and it is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. (paragraph 10)"
25. In the light of the said authoritative judicial pronouncements, reverting back to the instant matter, I find that the concerned Additional Commissioner (Estate) right from the time he issued the notice dated 17.09.2019 and throughout the subsequent stages of the procedure adopted acted in a biased and vindictive manner against the appellant. I am not oblivious of the fact that the other Government officials are not before this Court, and therefore, I refrain from making any comments on the merits of the allegations and counter allegations as between the appellant and his family members PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 26 of 32 on his side with other officials of the establishment on the other side.
26. All said and done, this Court is sitting in appeal in terms of its jurisdiction under section 9 of the PP Act and not in writ jurisdiction. The appeal is a creation of the statute and continuation of the inquiry before the Estate Officer and it is within the jurisdiction of this Court to appreciate the facts and circumstances brought before it and come to a finding different from the one given by the Estate Officer. That being the judicial approach, it is admitted position that the appellant has already been transferred to a place outside Delhi, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, he could have retained the accommodation till 30.09.2020 plus one month as grace period, on payment of nominal charges due to the aforesaid orders passed by the Government of India in connection with the COVID-19 Pandemic situation. Thereafter, the appellant is duty bound to make payment of occupation charges in terms of the CGGPRA Rules, 2017 referred to herein above. To sum up, although the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 suffers from vice of malafide action, in view of changed circumstances, the same can not be quashed and the appellant shall remain duty bound to surrender the subject premises as per the directions passed hereinafter in this order.
LEVY OF DAMAGES/PENAL CHARGES
27. This brings us to another issue of levy of damages or the penal charges to the extent of 40 times of the revised licence fee vide notice bearing reference C.No.I-14(17)/Estate/Complaint/2019/5116 dated 08.09.2020, which reads as under, which is again passed by PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 27 of 32 Mr.Alok Jha, the then Assistant Commissioner (Estate), CGST Delhi North :-
"C. No. I-4(17)/Estate/Complaint/2019/5116 dated 08.09.2019 To Shri Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Commissioner, A-2/D, Vatika Apartment, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064.
Sir, Subject : Extension for retention of governmental residential quarter at A-2D, Vatika Apartments, Mayapuri, New Delhi-reg.
Please refer to the mail letter dated 10.08.2020 on the subject cited above.
2. Vide your above said letter, you have mentioned guidelines issued by MHA, Government of India, regarding retention of govt. accommodation which were valid till 31.08.2020 has already elapsed.
3. You are therefore requested to pay 40 times revised licence fee (as per OM No.18011/2/2006-Pol.III dated 04.06.2013 and OM No. 12035/2/2020-Pol.II dated 05.05.2020 and 25.03.2020 (copy enclosed from 01.06.2020 till the vacation of flat.
4. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Encls.: As above Assistant Commissioner (Estate) CGST Delhi North"
28. Although no provision of law is quoted in the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2020, I assume that it is in exercise of powers under PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 28 of 32 Section 7 of the PP Act, which provides as under :-
"7. Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises.--(1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
(2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
(2A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with [compound interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978 (14 of 1978).
(3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within seven days from the date of issue thereof, why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer.
(4) Every order under this section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice."
29. Ex facie the impugned order dated 08.09.2020 is perverse, harsh and oppressive and cannot be sustained in law since the "unauthorized occupation" of the appellant, if any, could only be reckoned after expiry of two months of the "Lock down 04" measures w.e.f. 30.09.2020, and in any case the assessment of occupation PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 29 of 32 charges could not be more than four times of the nominal charges thereafter. Admittedly, no show cause notice has been served under Section 7 of the PP Act to the appellant whatsoever, nor he was ever called for personal hearing at any point of time before passing the impugned order dated 8.9.2020. The imposition of 40 times of the revised licence fee is contrary to all the well established norms set forth in the CGGPRA Rules, 2017 that have been referred hereinabove RESULT
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is disposed of as under with the following directions:-
(a). Firstly, the appeal against the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 is dismissed since the appellant already stands transferred to a different place of posting and he cannot be allowed to retain the accommodation indefinitely.
However, in view of the circulars/notices issued by the Government of India referred above, his period of occupation at the start of the "Lock down 01" till the issuance of "Lock down measures 04" cannot be said to be in the nature of "unauthorized occupation", and therefore, the appellant is entitled to retain the departmental pool accommodation till 30.09.2020.
That being the case, the appellant is now occupying the subject premises for over a period of four months, and therefore, the appellant shall vacate the subject premises in question on or before the 15th April, 2021;
PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 30 of 32(b). Secondly, the impugned order dated 08.09.2020, by which, the appellant has been called upon to pay 40 times of the revised licence fee is non est in law as the same has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice under Section 7(3) of the PP Act but also in gross violation of the CGGPRA Rules, 2017, and therefore, the same is quashed.
However, the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the appellant for assessment of damages and penal rent/charges for occupation of subject premises beyond 01.11.2020 (allowing grace period of one month to vacate) till the vacation of the premises as per due process of law laid down in Section 7 of the PP Act;
(c). Thirdly, the Principal Commissioner, CGST shall ensure that the matter is dealt with by an Estate Officer other than Mr.Alok Jha (IRS) in a fair and impartial manner in consonance with the procedure established by the law;
(d). Fourthly, the issue of the stoppage of HRA is not in the domain of this Court since it was passed prior to filing of this appeal.
However, the Competent Authority is impressed upon to re-visit/re-consider its order w.r.t to stoppage of HRA on a representation that may be preferred by the appellant within 15 days from today and pass a reasoned order taking into consideration the observations made by this Court while disposing of the instant appeal.
(e). Since an interim injunction had been granted against the PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 31 of 32 respondent directing it not to issue any coercive process till the decision of this appeal vide order dated 26.10.2020, the deduction of the damage/penal charges from the salary of the appellant subsequent to the said interim order is cannot be sustained in law and such charges be reimbursed to the appellant within 15 days from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum.
31. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Nothing contained in this order shall tantamount to an expression of opinion with regard to any disciplinary proceedings, if any, pending against the appellant.
32. The records of the Ld. Estate Officer be returned forthwith alongwith a copy of this judgment. A copy of this order be given dasti to the appellant as well. The Appeal file be consigned to the Record Digitally signed Room. by DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH Date:
SHARMA 2021.02.17
16:48:51
+0530
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
on 17th February, 2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
PPA-02/2020 Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Estate Officer Page 32 of 32