The cancellation of government accommodation did not amount to double punishment as it was not a punishment under the Punishment Appeal Rules.

ORDER

Girish Agnihotri, J. - Petitioner-Devta Parsad, stated to be aged 54 years has filed the present writ petition inter alia with a prayer to set aside order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P-14) passed in O.A. No.060/00803/2019, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.

2. The petitioner herein, as an applicant in O.A. No.060/00803/2019 had inter alia sought relief from the Tribunal to quash/set aside order/letter dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure P-10) in the present writ petition, whereby the petitioner had been directed to hand over the possession of the house to the department within 7 days. This OA was filed on 29.07.2019. On 31.07.2019, as noticed in para 2 of the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 19.01.2021, the petitioner was granted interim relief and as such continued staying in the said house.

3. At this stage, it is relevant to further record that Tribunal had vacated interim stay on 05.01.2021 and vide final order dated 19.01.2021, the Tribunal had dismissed the OA.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had inter alia argued that the impugned order dated 24.07.2019, whereby allotment of H.No.l518-B, Ty-II has been cancelled, has fallen to error inasmuch as it amounts to inflicting two different punishments for the same set of allegations.

5. Brief facts as also noticed in the order passed by the Tribunal are that the petitioner had joined his service on 24.11.1988 as Khalasi, whereafter on promotion to the post of Senior Technician, in July 1993, he was posted at Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, Punjab (i.e. under respondent Nos. 3 to 5).

6. After noticing other submissions on behalf of applicant, it has been brought on record that the plea of the applicant-petitioner before the Tribunal was that the petitioner has been residing in the official accommodation since long time. It has been further notice that the petitioner has been ordered to vacate the government accommodation as a counter blast to petitioner submitting number of complaints against respondent No.6. It was the argument of counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal that before passing the impugned order no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to him.

7. Upon notice, issued by the Tribunal, the written statement was filed on behalf of official respondents through Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Deputy Chief Engineer, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala. It was inter alia stated in the written statement that H. No.l518-B, Type II, West Colony, RCF Kapurthala, was allotted to him and the same has been cancelled in view of the Inquiry Report submitted by AWM/MFG-1. An objection was also taken that cancellation of Government accommodation as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not a service matter. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that numerous complaints were received in the department relating to personal conduct and social behavior of the applicant-petitioner from the neighbors/employees working in the Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala. The Competent Authority in order to examine the veracity of allegations in the complaint nominated Sh. Ram Parkash (SSE/SMS) and Sh. Rajesh Jatana (SSE/Shower Testing) to conduct a fact finding Inquiry. The applicant was afforded adequate opportunity by the Inquiry Officer but the applicant at his own volition did not appear. The said Inquiry report inter alia concluded with conclusion/recommendations:-

"(i) Railway Residence allotted to Shri Devta Prasad should be cancelled;

(ii) Disciplinary action may be initiated against Shri Devta Prasad for his conduct. "

8. It has further been pleaded that the said inquiry report was supplied to the applicant/petitioner vide letter dated 24.10.2019. It is specifically pleaded that the petitioner/applicant did not raise any objection nor disputed the findings. Thereafter on 16.08.2019, the petitioner was issued memo/charge sheet under Rule 11 of the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. It is st