Speaking orders must cite specific rules justifying actions; mere anecdotal claims insufficient. Postal notice does not substitute physical handover of government quarter per prescribed procedure. Matter remanded for reasoned decision. (32 words)

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

The present Original Application had been filed against the Speaking Order dated 27.05.2016 – issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Jaipur Division, North Western Railway (NWR), the Respondent No.3 – thereby rejecting the Applicant’s representations dated 18.12.2015 and 17.03.2016 vide which the Applicant had sought forcancellation of theShow- Cause Notice dated 04.12.2015issued for recovery of the arrear and penal rents from the Applicant on account of his unauthorised retention of the Railway QuarterNo.E/21/A at Fatehpur Shekhawati.

2. The present O.A. is a third round of litigation in the matter.

At first, regarding the matter of recovery of rent/penal rent from him for unauthorised occupation of Railway QuarterNo.E/21/A at Fatehpur Shekhawati, the Applicant had also filed a previous O.A. No.623/2014 before this Tribunal, whereby the related Letters/Orders – viz. the Letter dated 16.09.2014 of the of the Respondent No.3 addressed to the ADEN Sikar, NWR conveying that the Applicant had been unauthorisedly occupying the Railway QuarterNo.E/21/A at Fatehpur Shekhawati and advising therefore, that the amount of rent due on account of such unauthorised occupation of a Railway Quarter be deducted from him as per Rules and necessary action be also taken to get the said Railway Quarter duly vacated ; and the Letter dated 09.10.2014 of the ADEN, Sikar (NWR) addressed to the SSE(PW), Fatehpur Shekhawati to ensure that the amount of rent/damage rent be calculated and conveyed to SSE/PW/Banasthali, Niwai for appropriate deduction from his salary, and to also inform the Divisional Engineer (South), Jaipur for directing him to unlock the aforesaid Railway Quarter and hand over the same to SSE/PW/Fatehpur Shekhawati – were challenged. Purportedly, the said O.A. No.623/2014 as well as the determination of legality of the aforesaid communications/Orders dated 16.09.2014 and dated 09.10.2014 was pending at the time of filing of the present O.A. No.556/2016.

Secondly, the Applicant had also filed another previous O.A. No.173/2016 before this Tribunal, in which vide the Order dated 16.03.2016, the Respondents were directed inter alia to consider and decide the Applicant’s representation dated 18.12.2015 – that was made in response to the Show-Cause Notice dated 04.12.2015 and at that time pending before the Respondent No.3 – within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order; and if the Applicant were to file any fresh representation giving all details regarding the said Show-Cause Notice within a week from the date of that Order, the same shall also be considered and decided by the Respondent No.3 along with the pending representation dated 18.12.2015.It was also ordered that till the decision on the aforesaid representations of the Applicant, further recovery as proposed in pursuance of the Show-Cause Notice dated 04.12.2015 shall remain stayed. Accordingly, the Applicant had filed a fresh representation dated 17.03.2016, whereupon the Respondent No.3 had issued the Speaking Order dated 27.05.2016, which had been impugned in the present O.A. No.556/2016.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties to this case on record, the relevant matrix of facts emerged to be as followsbriefly. The Applicant, an employee of the Respondent-Department, Railways was posted as Sen