ORDER

SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 0f the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief :

“8 Under the circumstances, it is humbly prayed therefore, that the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 03.11.2022 and 12/13.07.2023 passed by the Respondent No.3 and 5 under Annexure-A/13 and A/15.And further be pleased to direct the Respondents to refund the amount which has already been recovered from the salary of the applicant as damage rent along with accrued interest thereon.Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may think fit and proper And allow this Original Application.”

2. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he entered into service as Junior Clerk/Typist in the Office of the Dy. Chief Engineer (Con)-II, East Coast Railway, Laxmipur and joined in service on 13.01.1988. While working as such, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and at present continuing as Office Superintendent in the Office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Con)-II, East Coast Railway, Angul (Respondent No.5). While working as such, Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 (A/13) imposing damage rent of Rs.14,03,585/- for the alleged unauthorized occupation of Railway quarter bearing No.Type-II, G/9 at Rail Awas, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Challenging the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3, the applicant had filed appeal/reply to show-cause on Dt.02.05.2023(A/14) before the Respondent No.3 but the Respondent No.3 and 5 without considering the said appeal of the applicant, rejected the same on 12/13.07.2023 by way of a non-speaking order as no cogent reason has been assigned for rejection.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that, as per Railway Board's guidelines with regard to retention of quarter dated 27.01.2016(A/3) where it has been clearly mentioned that any transfer on temporary basis or change in place of duty without any changes in the controlling authority does not require the Railway employees to vacate his railway quarter and retention is permissible under the rules but in spite of that the authority imposed the damage rent which is not permissible in the eye of law and further prays for a direction from this Hon'ble Tribunal to quash the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 and 12/13.07.2023 and to refund the amount which was deducted as damage rent from the salary of the applicant with accrued interest.

4. Respondents have filed their counter refuting the prayer made in the O.A. The main thrust of the Respondents is that the appeal made by the applicant for retention of Railway quarters at previous place of working due to shifting the office from Bhubaneswar to Angul was rejected by the Respondent No.3. Thereafter, the Respondents ordered to vacate the railway quarter retained by the applicant. In spite of that, the order was not carried out by the applicant, and consequent upon Railway authority had imposed the damage rent of recovery amounting to the tune of Rs.14,03,585/- vide order dated 03.11 2022. The applicant aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2022 of imposition of damage rent has preferred this original application before this Tribunal.

5. It is submitted by the respondents that the Railway Board letter dated 27.01.2016 (A/3) is not at a Circular, it is a correspondence letter between Railway Board, New Delhi and Respondent No.1 with reference to letter dated 13.11.2015 of Respondent No.3. However, as per relevant portion of the letter dated 13.11.2015, the applicant has already been granted retention permission from 18.04.2016 to 15.04.2017 “under the rules”. It is further submitted that when Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 30.03.2016 called for request letter from the willing officers/staff for retaining Railway quarter at previous working place as per direction of Railway