Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri A.K. Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri A.P. Srivastava, appearing for the Respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Union of India, through Chief Commercial Manager, North Central Railway, Head Office, Allahabad challenging the order dated 01/4/2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Allahabad allowing the Original Application No. 517 of 2004, filed by the Respondent No. 2 challenging the orders dated 12/12/2003 and 15/4/2004, by which order recovery of amount of Rs. 2,24,207/ - as damage charges in respect of Quarter No. E -3B,AEN Colony, Varanasi was directed. Brief facts of the case as emerge from pleadings of the parties are: The Respondent No. 2 was working as TI/Coal/BSB N.C. Railway, Allahabad. By an order dated 11/1/1994, Quarter No. E -3B,/BSB (SS/Pool) was directed to be transferred to Dy.CGS/BSB Pool by mutual transfer to allot it to Shri S.K. Mishra, the Respondent No. 2, who, claims to have taken possession of the quarter on 28/3/1994. By a subsequent order dated 30/3/1994, issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager, it was directed that the said quarter is not to be transferred to Chief Commercial Manager, (Pool), hence the allotment made in favour of the Respondent No. 2 be treated to be cancelled. A letter dated 31/3/1994, was issued by the Chairman Regional Housing Allotment Committee by which information was issued that the allotment of quarter in favour of the Respondent No. 2 has been cancelled by letter dated 30/3/1994, hence the same may be treated to have come into force immediately. Another letter dated 01/4/1994, was issued by the Station Manager, Varanasi informing the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (Claims) that allotment of said Quarter in favour of the Respondent No. 2 has been cancelled and the Respondent No. 2 be informed accordingly. The Station Manager, again wrote a letter dated 20/2/1995, to the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (Claim) NCR, Varanasi informing that even after cancellation of the said quarter the Respondent No. 2, has unauthorisedly occupied the said quarter and is still living in the said quarter. It was stated in the said letter that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Respondent No. 2 from the date of occupation of the said quarter and penal rent be deducted. Again a letter dated 23/10/2002, was written by Station Manager, NCR Varanasi to Senior Vigilance Inspector, Head Office Baroda House, New Delhi (In Varanasi) informing that in spite of cancellation of allotment on 30/3/1994, the Respondent No. 2 is illegally in unauthorised occupation of the said quarter and the letter dated 20/2/1995, was already issued by the Station Master for taking disciplinary action and deduction of penal rent from the salary of the Petitioner. On 10/10/2002, a vigilance check was also held in which the Respondent No. 2 was found in occupation of the said quarter. A letter dated 11/8/2003, was written by the General Manager, (Vigilance), directing for recovery of damage charges of Rs. 2,24,207/ - in easy instalments from the salary of the Respondent No. 2. A letter dated 12/12/2003, was written by Chief Commercial Manager, asking for directing for recovery of Rs. 2,24,207/ - as damage charges from the salary of the Respondent No. 2 in easy instalments. Consequently, a letter dated 15/4/2004, was written by Assistant Personnel Officer, NCR, Allahabad to the Respondent No. 2 for recovery of damage charges of Rs. 2,24,207/ - in easy instalments from his salary. Challenging the aforesaid two orders dated 12/12/2003 and 15/4/2004, the Respondent No. 2 filed the O.A. No. 517 of 2004, in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Allahabad, ("hereinafter called the "Tribunal") which has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 01/4/2005, quashing the aforesaid two orders directing that the amount already recovered be refunded to the Respondent No. 2 within three months. Challenging the order dated 01/4/2005, this writ petition has been filed by the Union of India.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the Tribunal contended that the Tribunal committed error in allowing the Original Application relying on a circular dated 21/9/1976, of the Railway Board which relates to temporary transfer and had no application in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the damage charges has been realised from the Petitioner only for the period from 04/10/2001 to 30/4/2002, when he was posted as Assistant Registrar in D.R.T. Allahabad and from 01/5/2002 to 17/4/2003, when he was posted as Assistant Registrar in D.R.T., Patna. It is submitted that the Petitioner being posted outside the Railways, his occupation of the said quarter was unauthorised and the damage charges has rightly been directed. It is submitted that the circular dated 01/6/2001, issued by the Railway Board was applicable which required an order for retention of quarter. It is further submitted that the allotment of the Petitioner having been cancelled immediately after allotment on 30/3/1994, his occupation throughout was unauthorised and damage charges has rightly been directed to be recovered. It is submitted that the recovery of damage charges was only for the period when the Petitioner was posted outside the Railways.;