- (1.) A short point arises for consideration in this Rule is, whether penal rent can be recovered from a railway employee for unauthorised occupation of a railway quarter, although normal rent has been regularly realised from such an employee since the date of his occupation.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the Eastern Railway as Typist on 22nd November, 1948. At the material time, he was attached to the Chief Security Officer's Office as Senior Typist. According to Rules, the petitioner was entitled to occupy a railway quarter. The quarter No. 63/D, type-II at Ballygunge was lying vacant. On the 27th of July, 1964 the petitioner approached the Divisional Superintendent. Sealdah with an application for allotting him the said auarter. The petitioner, however, was informed by the said Divisional Superintendent by his letter dated 1-8-64 that there was no vacant quarter at Ballygunge. Under some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to occupy the said vacant quarter and requested the authority concerned to regularise the issue. The Chief Security Officer by his letter dated 28th November, 1964 directed the petitioner to vacate the said quarter at once and report him how the petitioner had occupied the quarter without any order. The petitioner in his letter dated 2nd December, 1964 explained that under what circumstances he occupied the said auarter as the said quarter as it was very near to his previous rented room and he was unable to acquire any accommodation at too high a rate of rent which was prevailing at that time. Thereafter on the 22nd February, 1965, the Security Officer informed the petitioner that no more time would be given to the petitioner and disciplinary action would be taken against him if he failed to vacate the railway quarter. It appears that thereafter no action was taken against the petitioner. On 4th November, 1968 the Chief Security Officer addressed a letter to the Divisional Superintendent to allot 'A' type quarter to the petitioner for amelioration of the hardship that he would face due to vacation of the quarter. By letter dated 17th of January, 1969 the Divisional Superintendent, Sealdah informed the Chief Security Officer that the quarter was urgently required for housing essential staff of the division and the Chief Security Officer was requested to take necessary action to have the quarter vacated by the petitioner. It was also stated in the said letter that the market rate of rent of that quarter was Rs. 100 per month. On the 10th of February, 1969 the Chief Security Officer informed the petitioner that if he was so adamant not to vacate the quarter then the disciplinary action should be taken against him besides deduction of market rate of rent of the quarter at Rs. 100 per month from the date of unauthorised occupation i.e. 10th of October, 1964. On the 6th of May, 1969, the Chief Security Officer issued a charge-sheet upon the petitioner under Rule 1716 R. I. of Disciplinary and Appeal Rules for the disobedience of order in spite of repeated orders given to the petitioner as he failed to vacate the quarters and he was directed to give reply to the said charge-sheet within seven days from the date of receipt of the same. The petitioner gave a reply to the said charge-sheet wherein he pointed out that he had been residing in the quarter since 1964 on payment of rent which has been deducted from his salary regularly since occupation of the said quarter. Thereafter, on the 5th June, 1969, the Security Officer directed by an order that penal rent Rs. 100 per month with effect from 10th October, 1970 would be recovered from the petitioner for unauthorised occupation of the railway quarter. On the 8th June, 1970, the petitioner made a representation before the General Manager regarding allotment of the quarter. On the 24th September, 1971 the Chief Security Officer wrote again to the petitioner that if he failed to vacate the quarter within seven days from 9th of September, 1971, penal rent of Rs. 100 per month on and from 10th October, 1964 would be charged from his pay from the month of October, 1971 till the quarter was vacated by him. On the 24th September, 1971 i.e. on the same date the petitioner made a representation before the Chief Security Officer that usual rent in respect of the quarter in question had been regularly recovered from his salary. Therefo're, he could not be considerd as an unauthorised occupant and as such penal rent could not be realised from him. On the 16th December, 1972, the Chief Security Officer wrote to the General Manager to the effect that quarter No. 63/D at Ballygunge was under occupation of Sri Bose since 10-10-64 and normal rent has been deducted from his salary regularly. The said quarter was in the pool of DS/Sealdah which Sri Bose occupied in the year 1964, when no quarter could be given to him, although he has been working in the railway for a period of 24 years. As Sri Bose was in occupation of the quarter for the last 8 years, even though unauthorisedly, as usual rent was recovered from him. it would be difficult to oust him from the quarters without giving him some alternative accommodation in that area, as his children were all reading in the schools and colleges nearby. The Chief Security Officer was of opinion that the recovery of penal rent would place the whole family in a very tight pecuniary condition and it would not be proper to enforce the recovery of penal rent in view of the deduction of usual rent from him from the day of his occupation of the quarter.
(3.) Subsequently, it appears that a sum of Rs. 100 has been deducted from the salary bill of the petitioner for the month of January, 1973. The petitioner being aggrieved moved this Court on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule.;