Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 834 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Mannu Choudhury

2002-08-01

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and R.N.Prasad JJ. 1. Offshoot of the proceeding has been up to the Supreme Court. The phenomenon noticed by the Supreme Court is very serious not unknown in administration that some times employees whether State Government or the Government of India take law into their hands and occupy government accommodation and then make an issue out of it by intimidating the administration. This matter is about unauthorised occupation of accommodation by an employee of the railway administration. Such occupation generate local politics and misplaced trade unionism which affects discipline within the administration. This is one such case. 2. The respondent admittedly occupied the railway accommodation unauthorisedly. Thereafter, he sought regularisation occupying the accommodation first and seeking an allotment subsequently. The question was whether respondent had occupied the accommodation unauthorisedly and consequently tapped electricity from an official bungalow unauthorisedly also became an issue. If the answer to the first issue was in the affirmative, the second issue would not arise. 3. The matter went up to the Central Administrative Tribunal after disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunals order aggrieved the Union of India. The latter filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. A passage of the Supreme Court order is relevant, thus it is reproduced: "It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the applicants had no such right and therefore the Tribunal went beyond its jurisdiction in directing the Railway Administration to allot those out-houses to the concerned respondents could not show any rule or term of service entitling the applicants to reside in such out-houses, and fairly conceded that they do not have any such right. In showing its concern tor the employees, the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect. It also failed to appreciate that the out-houses are a part and parcel of the Bungalows allotted to the officers and that the officers are entitled to such type of accommodation. The respondents have been permitted to stay in the out-houses by the officers and their occupation of those out-houses is only permissive. As the applicants had failed to establish any right to occupy such premises or even their entitlement to such type of accommodation, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed their application. The Tribunal went much beyond its jurisdiction in giving the impugned direction and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained." 4. As the applicants had failed to establish any right to occupy such premises or even their entitlement to such type of accommodation, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed their application. The Tribunal went much beyond its jurisdiction in giving the impugned direction and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained." 4. The departmental authority as a consequence of departmental proceedings passed an order on 16th June, 1997 virtually giving a finding that the respondent employee has satisfactorily explained the occupation of the out-house and that the occupation cannot be declared unauthorised. The departmental authority was also conscious of the fact that this matter was pending before the Supreme Court. It would have been appropriate if the departmental authority simply adjourned the matter to await the decision of the Supreme Court. This departmental authority did not do. However, after departmental appeal the Railway administration took its decision and finding the misdemeanour of the respondent grave and serious passed an order for removal from service. This order of the railway administration, in effect, removing the respondent from service has been set aside by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved the Union of India has filed the present writ petition. 5. After the order of the Supreme Court the matter indeed has to be looked into whether the respondent occupied the accommodation unauthorisedly and depending on the answer of this issue, the other issue whether electricity had been utilised unauthorisedly is to be dealt with subsequently. In the circumstances, the very foundation of the order of the Tribunal cannot stand nor of the departmental authority which seemed to be giving immunity to the respondent in having explained away his unauthorised accommodation when the Supreme Court had yet to deliver its order. Subsequently, after the orders of the Supreme Court both the departmental authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna misdirected themselves. 6. In the circumstances, the disciplinary proceeding will stand remitted to the departmental authority sans its observation recorded on 16.6.1997. The proceeding before the departmental authority will be initiated do novo. The respondent will have full opportunity to resist the punishment awarded to him by the disciplinary authority. 7. It is difficult for the Court to ignore the order of the Supreme Court when the very concept of allotment of government accommodation has been taken seriously so that it is not occupied unauthorisedly. The respondent will have full opportunity to resist the punishment awarded to him by the disciplinary authority. 7. It is difficult for the Court to ignore the order of the Supreme Court when the very concept of allotment of government accommodation has been taken seriously so that it is not occupied unauthorisedly. All over the nation, whether within the State or Central Government, allotment of bungalows are to be made by the administration as a licence to occupy the accommodation. The occupation of out-houses cannot go beyond the license. Otherwise, it would be difficult to run the administration of government estates particularly those with the railways. 8. The writ petition succeeds. There will be no order of costs.