SHETHNA, J. - (1.) IN the morning a request was made by Shri Bhagirath Vishnoi for Mr. Mahesh Bora to adjourn this matter on personal ground of Mr. Bora. IN ordinary circumstance this request would have been granted but in this case the petitioner is enjoying the ex parte interim relief granted by this Court since long, therefore, request to adjourn the case was refused.
(2.) THIS matter is placed at S. No. 4 on Board today. When it was called out at 10. 45 a. m. nobody remained present, therefore, in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner this petition is being disposed of on merits. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer has filed this petition and challenged the impugned order dt. 29. 3. 1996 at Anx. 4 passed by the Estate Officer whereby he was called upon to vacate the quarter within 15 days failing which he would be forcibly dispossessed. He has also challenged the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Banswara on 5. 10. 1996 dismissed the appeal filed by him against the impugned order at Anx. 4. While issuing notice on stay petition learned Single Judge of this Court on 27. 1. 1997 ordered that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question and made it returnable within two weeks. It is unfortunate that the reply affidavit came to be filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 only on 6. 3. 2000 after a period of more than 3 years. Be that as it may. The petitioner is a Government servant working as Junior Engineer was transferred way back on 30. 6. 1990 from Banswara to Bikaner but kept his family at Banswara and not vacated the Government quarter. Later on he was transferred to Jaipur and on 27. 6. 95 he was transferred to Udaipur. On 1. 7. 1995 he was posted at Kushalgarh which is said to have been under Banswara head quarter. This fact is denied by the other side in the reply affidavit. According to the petitioner when he was transferred to Banswara he continued to occupy the quarter wherein his family was staying. Notice u/s. 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 came to be issued whereby the petitioner was called upon to vacate the quarter forthwith, but the petitioner did not remain present at the time of hearing on 22. 2. 1996. Therefore, another opportunity was given to the petitioner to remain present on 29. 3. 1996. On that date also he did not remain present, therefore, an ex parte impugned order was passed by the Estate Officer which is at Anx. 4. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Banswara. This petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The scope of which is very narrow and limited as held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustagim (1), Going through the order passed by the learned District Judge in dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order Anx. 4 passed by the Estate Officer, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in my supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) THAT apart no person much less person like the petitioner had any right to occupy the quarter on his transfer for such a long period of nearly 10 years. If it is allowed then other persons coming on transfer in place of the petitioner would definitely suffer because of Government accommodation not made available to him. In my opinion that act of the petitioner is an act of gross indiscipline for which the Department should also initiate against him disciplinary proceedings, so that in future no other Government employees can take such liberty of retaining the quarter for a long long time on his transfer. At this stage it was submitted by the learned counsel Shri Mehta that on transfer a Government employee is ordinarily expected to vacate the quarter within one month, therefore, unless and until he has obtained the special permission for retaining the quarter otherwise he cannot occupy the quarter and the said occupation would be unauthorised for which he is required to pay penal rent. It may be stated that there was negligence on the part of the respondent authority also for not immediately initiating proceedings against him. It is also unfortunate that the petitioner could mange to enjoy exparte interim relief granted in his favour for more than 3 years because of lethargy on the part of the respondents in filling reply affidavit almost three years after. Be that as it may. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in this petition. Accordingly, it fails and it is dismissed. The stay granted earlier on stay petition stands vacated forthwith. This order is passed in open Court in presence of Mr. Mehta, therefore, Mr. Mehta will see to it that immediate action is taken and the possession of the quarter is immediately taken from the petitioner and the petitioner is forthwith dispossessed from the quarter which he is occupying. . ;