P.B. Raman vs Director Of Estates
1987 Latest Caselaw 259 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ranganathan, J.

(1) The petitioner is working as a daftri in the RailwayBoard, New Delhi. In September, 1984 he was given an out of turn allotment of quarters bearing No. 46-WC in the Pusa Complex, New Delhi. The petitioner took possession of the premises on 9-10-1984, but states that, on account of certain personal difficulties, he did not occupy the premises or even obtaine delectricity and water connections in respect thereof, but instead applied to the Administration for change of accommodation. This application was pending.ID the meantime, on 5-6-1985, he received a notice from the Deputy Director of Estates that "as a result of the enquiry, it had been reported that the petitioner had given the quarters in question to certain unauthorised persons on(Para 10)rent". He was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why he should not be asked to vacate the quarters, made ineligible for further government accommodation for a period of three years and why certain other penal orders should not be passed against him. The petitioner filed a reply on 13-6-1985.On 5-7-1985 the Deputy Director of Estates passed an order cancelling the allotment of the above quarters to the petitioner, directing him to vacate the premises in question and to pay a penal rent in case he continued to occupy the quarters thereafter. He was also declared ineligible for government accommodation for a period of three years. These consequences followed from a finding in the order : "AS a result of the enquiries made it has been proved that ShriP.B. Raman has been mis-using the garage attached to quarterNo. 46 Iii, A.R.I, allotted to him and has sublet the same to some unauthorised persons for residential purposes in contravention ofthe....... rules."

The petitioner made are presentation to the Director of Estates on 23-7-1985which was rejected by an order dated 23-8-1985. He made a further representation both to the Director of Estates and to the Minister but these were without avail. On 14-7-1986 the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant Director of Estates calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 792.30 for the period from 3-9-1985 till 8-5-1986, on which date, it is alleged, the respondents took possession of the premises forcibly. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that the order dated 5-8-1985, the communication dated 23-8-1985and that the memorandum dated 14-7-1986 be quashed.

(2) When the matter came up before us on an earlier occasion, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing that he had not at all sublet the premises as alleged by the respondents. It was pointed out that for the first time in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it was stated that the petitioner had sublet the quarters in question to one Tej Pal Singh, who was employed in the Pusa Institute and staying in the quarters. The petitioner's submission was that Tej Pal Singh was actually residing in quarters bearing No. 45 and not in the quarters allotted to the petitioner. It was also submitted by the respondents that an eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 13-1-1986and forcible eviction had to be resorted to as the premises were found locked as it was learnt that the party had gone away with all his luggage without handing over the vacant possession to the C.P.W.D.

(3) When the matter came up for hearing before us on 8/01/1987the respondents pointed out that they had acted on a report received from an Inspecting Officer. We found that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to show that he had not let the quarters to Tej Pal Singh who was reported to be residing in the quarters in question. Counsel for the respondents thereupon agreed that they would conduct an enquiry without prejudice to the contentions of the writ petition. We, therefore, adjourned the writ petition and directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry and also to give of an apportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations made against him.

(4) The matter again came up before us on 3-3-1987. At this time,counsel for the respondents relied upon the statement given by Shri S.K.Sharma who was allottee of premises No. 45 and who had stated that Tej PalSingh was staying in premises No. 46 at the relevant time. But this statement had not been put to the petitioner nor had he been given any opportunity to corss-examine Shrima in order to ascertain the truth of his statement. We,therefore directed the respondents to hear the petitioner again, to give him an opportunity to cross-examine S.K. Sharma and also to produce Tej PalSingh if lie can. in support of his case.

(5) The matter now comes up for final disposal Both parties agree that,in pursuance of the directions of this court, a hearing was held on 8/03/1987 and again on 31-3-1987. The Enquiry Officer has again come to the conclusion that the petitioner had actually sublet the premises to Tej PalSingh and that Tej Pal Singh had subsequently shifted to quarters No. 48 in January 1986, after the date of inspection of quarters No 46. In support of his conclusions he has relied upon the report of the Inspecting Officer, c ofS.K. Sharma as well as the statements of one Shri Ram Kumar.

(6) Counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the statements made byS K Sharma and Ram Kumar. It is true that in the earlier statement recorded on 22-1-1987, Shri S K. Sharma had stated that Tej Pal Singh was the occupant of quarters No. 46 and considering Shri S.K. Sharma was the allottee of quarters No. 45 it did appear that the petitioner had sublet quarters in question Shri Sharma was quite categorical that Tej Pal Singh had neverstayed quarters No. 46 from 1984 to 1986 and that P.B.Raman never stayed in the quarters allotted to him. However, when he appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 31-3-1986 and was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner he totally changed his stand. He said that he had made a mistake in giving the earlier statement and that he had confused between quartersNo. 46 and quarters No. 48. According to his present statement Tej PalSingh was occupying quarters No. 48. He has also stated that he did not know who the allottee of quarters No. 48 was and that when it was mentioned by the Inspecting Officer that the quarters had been allotted to one Raman, he had thought that was correct. In other words, S.K. Sharma has categoricallygone back on his earlier statement. Similarly Ram Kumar, who claimed to have been allotted quarters No. 44 from August 1985 to the end of 1986stated that at the time of inspection in April 1985 quarters No. 46 was inoccupation of Tej Pal Singh, who later on shifted to quarters No. 48. However,in the course of his cross-examination he stated, inter-alia : "My statement was recorded on 18-3-1987 Mr. Tej Pal Singh told me that he lived in W.C. 46 I.A.R I, Pusa for some time(illegible) he told me he was staying. I do nut remember the exactmonth, . . . . ."

Thus it appears that though Ram Kumar claimed in the earlier statement that he was personally aware that Tej Pal Singh was occupying quarters No. 46, it appears from the latter statement that this was said by him not out of is personal knowledge but on the basis of what he was, sometime, told by Tej PalSingh. If, in fact, Tej Pal Singh was an occupant of quarters No. 46 during the period when Ram Kumar was the allottee of quarters No. 44, it make no sense as to why he should rely upon the statement made by Tej Pal Singh that he was occupying quarters bearing No. 46.

(7) After having perused the material we are of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the Estates Officer are totally perverse and are based on nomaterial. In the first instance all that they stated was that at the time of inspection some time in 1985 it was factually found that Tej Pal Singh was occupying the quarters in question. Tej Pal Singh himself has not c in the course of proceedings. At a later stage the respondents relied upon the statement made by Shri S.K. Sharma, but S.K. Sharma has completely gone back on his earlier statement and states that he had mixed up between quarters Nos. 46 and 48. At a later stage the respondents brought forward one Ram Kumar, who alleges that Tej Pal Singh was occupying the premises inquestion, but as pointed out above, his statement is unreliable in view of the admission made in the cross-examination. It is important to remember that the whole basis of action taken by the respondents was a discovery some time in April 1986 or there about the substance of which was never put to the petitioner. In the course of the second enquiry conducted during the pendency of the petition, they have relied upon the evidence of two persons but this evidence is obviously not acceptable for the reasons discussed above. The petitioner isa low paid employee of Central Government office and it is difficult to believe that he could have brought pressure either on Sharma or Ram Kumar to change their stand. On the other hand, it is somewhat interesting to see that S. KSharma is an employee in Nirman Bhawan and that Ram Kumar is also a c the Estate Office.

(8) In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the findings of the respondents that the petitioner had sublet his quarters unauthorisedly is c no evidence, and is liable to be quashed. The orders cancelling the allotmentof the petitioner the above reasons calling upon him to pay penal rent and debarring the petitioner from further allotment of Government accommodation are all based on this finding and have to be set aside. We directaccoraingly.

(9) As we have already mentioned, it is said that there is also an order offiction passed against the petitioner on 13-1-1986. The validity of this or derhas not been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition apparently because he has anyhow been evicted from the premises with effect from 8-5-1986We are, therefore, not specifically quashing the order dated 13-1-1986 evicting the petitioner from the premises in question.no order petition is allowed- In the circumstances, however, we make.