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 allotmentof 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 accountof certain personal difficulties, he did not occupy the premises or even obtainedelectricity and water connections in respect thereof, but instead applied to theadministration for change of accommodation. This application was pending. ID the meantime, on 5-6-1985, he received a notice from the Deputy Directorof 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 shouldnot be asked to vacate the quarters, made ineligible for further governmentaccommodation for a period of three years and why certain other penal ordersshould 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 theallotment of the above quarters to the petitioner, directing him to vacate thepremises in question and to pay a penal rent in case he continued to occupythe quarters thereafter. He was also declared ineligible for government accommodation for a period of three years. These consequences followed from afinding 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 someunauthorised persons for residential purposes in contravention ofthe. . . . . . . rules. "the petitioner made arepresentation 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 werewithout avail. On 14-7-1986 the petitioner received a letter from the Assistantdirector of Estates calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 792. 30 for the periodfrom 3-9-1985 till 8-5-1986, on which date, it is alleged, the respondents tookpossession of the premises forcibly. The petitioner has filed this writ petitionpraying that the order dated 5-8-1985, the communication dated 23-8-1985and that the memorandum dated 14-7-1986 be quashed. 792. 30 for the periodfrom 3-9-1985 till 8-5-1986, on which date, it is alleged, the respondents tookpossession of the premises forcibly. The petitioner has filed this writ petitionpraying 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 wassubmitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had not been given areasonable opportunity of showing that he had not at all sublet the premisesas alleged by the respondents. It was pointed out that for the first time inthe reply filed on behalf of the respondents it was stated that the petitionerhad sublet the quarters in question to one Tej Pal Singh, who was employedin the Pusa Institute and staying in the quarters. The petitioner s submissionwas that Tej Pal Singh was actually residing in quarters bearing No. 45 and notin 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 lockedas it was learnt that the party had gone away with all his luggage withouthanding 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 aninspecting Officer. We found that no opportunity had been given to thepetitioner to show that he had not let the quarters to Tej Pal Singh who wasreported to be residing in the quarters in question. Counsel for the respondents thereupon agreed that they would conduct an enquiry without prejudiceto the contentions of the writ petition. We, therefore, adjourned the writpetition and directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry and also to giveof 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 permises No. 46 at the relevant time. ( 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 permises No. 46 at the relevant time. But this statement had not been put to the petitioner nor had he been given any opportunityto corss-examine Shrima in order to ascertain the truth of his statement. We,therefore directed the respondents to hear the petitioner again, to give himan 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 theconclusion that the petitioner had actually sublet the premises to Tej Palsingh and that Tej Pal Singh had subsequently shifted to quarters No. 48 injanuary 1986, after the date of inspection of quarters No 46. In support ofhis conclusions he has relied upon the report of the Inspecting Officer, thestatements 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 inthe earlier statement recordedon 22-1-1987, Shri S K. Sharma had stated that Tej Pal Singh was the occupantof quarters No. 46 and considering Shri S. K. Sharma was the allottee ofquarters No. 45 it did appear that the petitioner had sublet quarters inquestion Shri Sharma was quite categorical that Tej Pal Singh had beenoccupying quarters No. 46 from 1984 to 1986 and that P. B. Raman neverstayed in the quarters allotted to him. However, when he appeared beforethe Enquiry Officer on 31-3-1986 and was cross-examined on behalf of thepetitioner he totally changed his stand. He said that he had made a mistakein 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. However, when he appeared beforethe Enquiry Officer on 31-3-1986 and was cross-examined on behalf of thepetitioner he totally changed his stand. He said that he had made a mistakein 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 notknow who the allottee of quarters No. 48 was and that when it was mentionedby the Inspecting Officer that the quarters had been allotted to one Raman, hehad thought that was correct. In other words, S. K. Sharma has categoricallygone back on his earlier statement. Similarly Ram Kumar, who claimed tohave 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 Singhtold me that he lived in W. C. 46 I. A. R I, Pusafor 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 thathe was personally aware that Tej Pal Singh was occupying quarters No. 46, itappears from the latter statement that this was said by him not out of bispersonal 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 duringthe period when Ram Kumar was the allottee of quarters No. 44, it make nosense as to why he should rely upon the statement made by Tej Pal Singhthat 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 ofinspection some time in 1985 it was factually found that Tej Pal Singh wasoccupying the quarters in question. Tej Pal Singh himself has not beenexamined in the course of proceedings. In the first instance all that they stated was that at the time ofinspection some time in 1985 it was factually found that Tej Pal Singh wasoccupying the quarters in question. Tej Pal Singh himself has not beenexamined in the course of proceedings. At a later stage the respondents reliedupon 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 betweenquarters Nos. 46 and 48. At a later stage the respondents brought forward oneram Kumar, who alleges that Tej Pal Singh was occupying the premises inquestion, but as pointed out above, his statement is unreliable in view of theadmission made in the cross-examination. It is important to remember thatthe whole basis of action taken by the respondents was a discovery some timein 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 ofthe petition, they have relied upon the evidence of two persons but this evidenceis obviously not acceptable for the reasons discussed above. The petitioner isa low paid employee of Central Government office and it is difficult to believethat he could have brought pressure either on Sharma or Ram Kumar to changetheir 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 peonin the Estate Office. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances we are of the opinion that the findings of therespondents that the petitioner had sublet his quarters unauthorisedly is basedon no evidence, and is liable to be quashed. The orders cancelling the allotmentof the petitioner the above reasons calling upon him to pay penal rentand 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 orderhas 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 evictingthe petitioner from the premises in question. The validity of this orderhas 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 evictingthe petitioner from the premises in question. no order petition is allowed- In the circumstances, however, we make