Ajit Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 555 Cal

27.01.2021
      5
 ns Ct.04
                                     M.A.T. 602 of 2020
                                         With
                                I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2020
                                         With
                                I.A. No.CAN 2 of 2020

                                 Ajit Kumar Singh.
                                          Vs.
                                Union of India & ors.

              Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder,
              Mr. Pratik Majumder                  .... for appellant.

              Mr. Satyendra Agarwal,
              Ms. Sneha Dutta                      ... for respondents.

This is an intra Court appeal from interim

order dated 4th September, 2020. Mr. Majumder appears

on behalf of appellant while Mr. Agarwal for respondents.

By consent the appeal is taken up for hearing on

dispensation of all formalities including service of notice of

appeal, on papers disclosed in the stay application.

Mr. Majumder submits, his client was

transferred by order dated 18 th January, 2019 from

Bondamunda (BNDM), to Kharagpur (KGP), divisions.

While serving at BNDM he was allowed and in occupation

of railway quarter. On transfer, appellant had, on 18 th

July, 2019, applied for quarter at KGP. However, by order

dated 6th August, 2019 he was again transferred, on an

inter zonal transfer, to Chennai. Appellant moved the writ

Court successfully and by order dated 20th August, 2019,

the inter zonal transfer order was quashed. Appellant

remained at KGP.

Appellant continued to hold on to his quarter

at BNDM on, according to him, not being allowed a quarter

in KGP. He stayed in railway barracks at his transferred

post. By communication dated 9 th April, 2020, the

Divisional Security Commissioner /RPF advised appellant

to vacate the railway quarter. Mr. Majumder submits, by

then lock down consequent to declaration of pandemic

Covid-19 had set in. The situation was acknowledged by

the railways per communication dated 31 st July, 2020, on

subject stated therein to be 'Quarter retention for officers,

whose vacation date falls during Covid period', said to be

after 24th March, 2020, on outer most limit of 31 st October,

2020. Mr. Majumder submits, his client was allotted a

quarter in KGP and vacated the quarter at BNDM in

August, 2020, before the date of outer limit. He also draws

attention to two salary slips of his client for May and June,

2020, in which house rent stands deducted.

He refers to rule 81 in Railway Protection Force

Rules, 1987, providing for deduction from pay and

allowances. He submits, under the rule an opportunity to

show cause by his client the authorities were obliged to

give before deduction of penal rent. He points out from

communication dated 22nd July, 2020, impugned in the

writ petition, penal rent was claimed from 20 th January,

2019 till July, 2020, as imposed by Divisional Security

Commissioner / RPF, (SER). The decision communicated

is that an amount of Rs.33,900/- will be recovered on each

of 36 instalments with effect from July, 2020, to recover

aggregate damages amounting to Rs.12,20,400/-. He

submits, no opportunity was given to his client to bring the

circumstances, being reasons for holding on to the quarter

after transfer till before he was allotted one, to notice of the

authorities.

He relies judgment of Supreme Court. State of

Maharashtra vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council reported in

(2003) 9 SCC 731, paragraph 30 on fundamental principle

of fair hearing and Gorakhpur University vs. Dr. Shitla

Prasad Nagendra reported in AIR 2001 SC 2433.

Following sentences from paragraph 5 of the latter are

reproduced below:-

"5............The lethargy shown by the authorities in not taking any action according to law to enforce their right to recover possession of the quarters from the respondent or fix liability or determine the so-called penal rent after giving prior show-cause notice or any opportunity to him before ever even proceeding to recover the same from the respondent renders the claim for penal rent not only a seriously disputed or contested claim but the University cannot be allowed to recover summarily the alleged dues according to its whims in a vindictive manner by adopting different and discriminatory standards."

He adds the proper authority to determine penal rent

would be the Estate Officer.

Mr. Agarwal relies on rule 120.2, reproduced

below:-

"120.2. It shall be a condition of his service that he shall vacate the accommodation on his ceasing to be a member of the Force or on his transfer from that place or whenever an officer not below the rank of Security Commissioner, for reasons to be recorded in writing, finds it necessary and expedient for him to do so."

He also relies on clause (iv) in rule 146.2. The clause is

reproduced below:-

"146.2. (iv) Neglect of duty:..............fail properly to account for, or to make a prompt and true return of any money or property received by him in the course of his duty."

We grant adjournment to Mr. Agarwal to

answer Court's query on relevant rule regarding application

for retention of railway quarter. We will also hear his

client's contentions in defence to argument made, on

adjourned date.

List on 1st February, 2021.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)