Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Raj Kumar vs Sports Authority Of India on 1 May, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH,
CHANDIGARH.
O.A.No.1111/CH/2012 Date of Decision : 01.05.2014
Reserved on : 25.04.2014
CORAM: HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raj Kumar, aged 46 years, son of Shri Mangal Singh, Stenographer, Sports Authority of India, Northern Regional Centre, Hockey Stadium, Sector 42, Chandigarh, resident of House No.266, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.
Applicant
Versus
1. Sports Authority of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi-110 003 through its Director General.
2. Assistant Controller (F&A) Rents, Chandigarh Administration, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Ajit Singh, Deputy Director-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Sports Authority of India, Northern Regional Centre, Hockey Stadium, Sector 42, Chandigarh.
4. P.K. Mattu, Assistant Director (Admn.), Sports Authority of India, Northern Regional Centre, Hockey Stadium, Sector 42, Chandigarh.
. Respondents
Present: Mr. K.B.Sharma, proxy for Mr. D.R.Sharma, counsel for the
applicant
Mr. Arvind Moudgil, counsel for respondents no.1, 3 & 4
Mr. Aseem Rai, proxy for Ms. Puneeta Sethi, counsel for respondent no.2.
O R D E R
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
8 (ii) quash the impugned recovery orders No.SAI/NC/Admn./2012/2215 dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure A-1), passed by respondent no.4, an incompetent authority, whereby an amount of Rs.6,71,745/- is sought to be recovered forthwith from the applicant through respondent no.3 by showing it to be the alleged arrear of licence fee for the last 22 years, unilaterally with malafide intentions and without following the due process of law, being wholly and patently illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, void, cryptic, non-speaking, violative of principles of natural justice, unconstitutional and in clear contravention of the rules of law.
(iii) also quashing the impugned letter No.SOR-I/P7/19004, dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure A-2), passed by respondent no.2 as having been procured by respondent nos.3 & 4 by manipulating the official records and fraudulently showing inflated figures coupled with nil realization of the licence fee for the last 22 years after this Court was pleased to observe in para no.13 of the judgment dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure A-9), rendered in OA No,.269/CH of 2012 filed by the applicant against respondents no.1, 3 and 4 and another, that the respondents are acting in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
2. Interim relief was sought as follows:-
9. Pending final decision on the original application, the operation of the impugned orders as well as the recovery proceedings may be stayed, in the interest of justice. and when the matter was taken up for hearing on admission on 28.09.2012, the impugned recovery was stayed and this position continues till date.
3. Brief facts of the matter are that the applicant was appointed as Stenographer Grade D in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 24.07.1992 and was confirmed as such w.e.f. 28.07.1994 in Sports Authority of India (SAI). When the office of the Sports Authority of India, Northern Regional Centre was established at Chandigarh in 1992, the Chandigarh Administration allotted residential accommodation i.e. House No.266, 267 and 267/1 at Sector 44, Chandigarh, which were placed at the disposal of the Regional Director, Sports Authority of India being the controlling and the competent authority for allotment of this accommodation to the staff of SAI. House No.266, Sector 44/A, Chandigarh was allotted to the applicant vide letter dated 20.09.1993 (Annexure A-3) and the relevant clause 3 of the allotment letter reads as follows:-
3. Licence fee fixed by this office will be charged and deducted from your salary. As per the allotment letter, the Accounts Officer was directed to recover the licence fee from the salary of the applicant.
4. Averment has been made in the OA that the applicant occupied this accommodation in November, 1993 and licence fee of Rs.80 per month fixed by the Regional Director, SAI, Northern Centre, Chandigarh, being the competent authority, was being deducted from the salary of the applicant from November, 1993 onwards. Although the licence fee of Rs.65 per month was fixed by the Chandigarh Administration and this licence fee was revised to Rs.154 per month w.e.f. 16.01.2009. The accumulated amount of the licence fee of the three houses was being remitted to respondent no.2 by the SAI and a copy of one such order dated 19.07.2002 conveying the approval of the competent authority i.e. the Regional Director, SAI for remittance of Rs.7366 on account of the accumulated licence fee for all the three houses i.e. House No.266, 267 and 267/1, Sector 44/A, Chandigarh upto 31.03.2002 (Annexure A-4). Respondent no.2 has been issuing demand letters regarding rent to the SAI, copy of one such letter No.SOR-I/P-7/16642, dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) shows that a sum of Rs.23,711 was demanded from the Sports Authority of India for all the three houses upto 31.03.2010 and licence fee was revised to Rs.154 (Rs.462 for three houses) w.e.f. 16.01.2009. Alongwith the letter dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) respondent no.2 also forwarded the assessment sheets showing the assessment as well as the realization of each month (Annexure A-6).
5. The applicant was posted at Sonepat from January, 2006 to November, 2009. All the staff who were posted at Sonepat from June, 2005 to April, 2009 were allowed to retain the official accommodation allotted to them at Chandigarh and no cancellation notice was issued to any of the allottees including the applicant. Reference has further been made to the OAs filed by the applicant on account of his transfer to Udhampur and he has alleged harassment on the part of respondents no.3 and 4, which has resulted in the impugned letter dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure A-2) being issued from the office of respondent no.2.
6. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated as follows:-
i) The impugned orders were passed by manipulating the official records by showing the inflated figures of the alleged arrears of licence fee for the last 22 years.
ii) Before passing the impugned orders, no opportunity was afforded to the applicant and the impugned letter dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure A-2) was procured by respondents no.3 & 4 from respondent no.2 after this Tribunal observed in para 13 of the judgment dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure A-9) rendered in OA No.269/CH of 2012 filed by the applicant against respondents no.1, 3 and 4 and another. The respondents had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
iii) The applicant was allotted the official accommodation by the Regional Director, SAI Northern Centre, Chandigarh who is the competent authority to deal with the matters relating to the allotment, cancellation recovery of the licence fee etc. in respect of SAI employees. However, (Annexure A-1) had been passed by the Assistant Director, (Administration), SAI who is not competent to pass such an order.
7. Written statement has been filed jointly on behalf of respondents no.1, 3 and 4 stating that the applicant had suppressed the facts as he had been given notice vide order No.SAI/NC/ADMN/2005-06/8782, dated 17.01.2007 informing him that as per rules, personnel transferred from one station to another can retain official accommodation upto two months on normal licence fee and upto maximum of six months on market rate licence fee and instructed that government accommodation in the occupation of the applicant be surrendered by 31.03.2007 failing which action would be taken as per rules (Annexure R-1/1). It is further stated that the licence fee for three houses including the House no.266 is sent to Chandigarh Administration as per demand / requisition of the Chandigarh Administration from time to time. It has also been stated that the applicant has directly approached the Tribunal while he could have represented against the letter No.SAI/NC/Admn./2012/2215, dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure A-1), copy of which had been endorsed to the applicant, and such representation would have been examined on merits.
8. Short reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 wherein it has been stated that three government houses viz House No.266, 267 and 267/1 were placed at the disposal of the Regional Director, SAI by the Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 30.01.1992 for allotment to SAI employees. Rent / licence fee was chargeable against these houses at Rs.222 per month, which was later on revised to Rs.462 per month w.e.f. 16.01.2009 onwards. The Chandigarh Administration had also imposed interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding dues of licence fee applicable w.e.f. 16.01.2009 onwards. The applicant was allotted House No.266 in 1992, but he was posted out of Chandigarh w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and was relieved from the SAI office on 22.01.2001. He remained on deputation with the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers till 07.06.2004 and was posted at STC, Chandigarh from June 2004 to 09.01.2006. He was transferred from STC, Chandigarh to NRC, Sonepat in January, 2006 till his posting again at Chandigarh on 02.12.2009. When the applicant was posted to the Sonepat, he was issued notice to surrender the house latest by 31.03.2007, but he failed to do so and the accommodation could not be handed over to the Chandigarh Administration. As such on account of reasons mentioned neither the market / penal rent was recovered nor the house was surrendered to the Chandigarh Administration as the applicant had not vacated the house despite notice to him. However, the respondent Chandigarh Administration had no objection for recovery of rent from Sh. Raj Kumar, Steno (as calculated by the Controller of Rents) respondent no.2 as per the Policy of Chandigarh Administration and the applicable Rules.
9. Written arguments were submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 referred to the facts taken in the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and stated that since the applicant did not vacate the accommodation allotted to him when he was transferred out of Chandigarh, the rent / penal rent was proposed to be recovered as per the Rules. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, 3 and 4 reiterated the content of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.1, 3 and 4 and hence the same are not repeated here.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. The first point to be noted is that although allegations of malafide have been made in the OA against respondents no.3 and 4, who have been impleaded by name, no separate reply has been filed on behalf of these persons. It is also seen that in 1992, the House No.266 along with other two houses was placed at the disposal of the SAI for allotment to its staff. Hence it was the competent authority in SAI that was responsible for allotting the accommodation, recovering the licence fee from the allottees and depositing the same with the Chandigarh Administration. Nothing has been placed on record by respondent no.1 to show that licence fee for the period 1992 to January, 2001, when the applicant was transferred out from Chandigarh, was not recovered from the applicant although the applicant has made a categorical statement that such recovery was effected from the salary. Also the content of office order No.137 of 2002, dated 19.07.2002 (Annexure A-4) shows that SAI had sanctioned release of an amount of Rs.7366 to the Assistant Controller (F&A), Chandigarh Administration on account of licence fee upto 31.03.2002 in respect of government houses 266, 267 and 267/1, Sector 44/A, Chandigarh occupied by SAI. Further, the respondents have not shown any order to indicate that the applicant was asked to vacate the accommodation allotted to him after 22.01.2001 when the applicant was transferred from SAI and went on deputation to the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers. The applicant returned to the SAI, Chandigarh Centre in June, 2004 and was posted to NRC, Sonepat in Chandigarh 2006 where he remained till he was again posted to Chandigarh on 02.12.2009. The applicant has claimed that other staff of SAI posted to Sonepat were allowed to retain the accommodation occupied by them in Chandigarh even while they were in Sonepat. This contention of the applicant has also not been rebutted by the respondents and reference is only made to a notice issued on 17.01.2007 directing the applicant to vacate the accommodation by 31.03.2007. No further action appears to have been taken thereafter by the SAI to enforce the eviction of the applicant from the accommodation that he was allegedly unauthorizedly occupying and meanwhile the applicant returned to Chandigarh on posting.
11. It is further seen that the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure A-1) has been issued on the basis of Memo No.SORI/P7, dated 24.08.2012 issued by the Assistant Controller (F&A) Rents, Chandigarh Administration to Director, SAI (copy has been endorsed to the applicant) wherein demand of Rs.6,71,745 has been raised against the applicant on account of House No.266. It has been mentioned in this letter that in case any recovery has actually been made from the pay of the official or there are missing credits, details (duly attested) may be furnished to the Assistant Controller (F&A) Rents. It is not understood how such communication could be issued by the Assistant Controller (F&A) Rents, Chandigarh Administration in respect of the applicant, when the Chandigarh Administration had only assigned three houses to the SAI for allotment and the Chandigarh Administration had no direct role in the allotment of the accommodation to any employee of SAI or to recover licence fee from such individual directly. This responsibility of the recovery of the licence fee and depositing the same with the Chandigarh Administration squarely rested with the respondent, SAI. The letter dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure A-1) and Memo No.SOR-I/P-7/16642, dated 24.08.2012 (Annexure A-2) are a direct contradiction of the content of Annexure A-4 that refers to deposit of licence fee upto 31.03.2002 and Annexure A-5 that refers to raising of demand of Rs.23,711 in respect of House No.266, 267 and 267/1 for the period ending 31.03.2010. Annexure A-2 has been issued relating to the individual record of Sh. Raj Kumar and raising the huge demand of Rs.6,71, 745. No reconciliation of accounts appears to have been attempted by respondents no.3 & 4 with the office of Assistant Controller (F&A) Rents Chandigarh Administration before issuing letter dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure A-1).
12. We are therefore of the view that the matter requires consideration by the DG, SAI who may constitute a two Member Committee comprising senior officers not connected with the Northern Regional Centre, SAI to go into the matter in detail regarding the recovery of licence fee from Sh. Raj Kumar in respect of House no.266 and issue of deposit of the licence fee for the three houses with the Chandigarh Administration. The issue of the rent to be recovered from the applicant for the period when he was transferred out of Chandigarh may also be examined in accordance with the Rules, keeping in view the treatment meted out to other employees of SAI who were moved to the Regional Centre of SAI, Sonepat. After the detailed enquiry in the course of which opportunity must be allowed to the applicant to present his case, a speaking order may be passed regarding the month-wise recovery of licence fee from the applicant in respect of House no.266. Action in this regard may be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order being served upon respondent no.1. Meanwhile the impugned orders dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure A-1) and 24.08.2012 (Annexure A-2) are quashed. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Chandigarh Dated: 01.05.2014 sv:
??
??
??
??4
(OA.No.1111/2012 titled (RAJ KUMAR VS. SAI & ORS.)