SUNITA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 11.4.2001 and 15.12.2002 pertaining to allotment of Government Accommodation, to the petitioner, have been impugned.

(2.) THE petitioner is Programme Executive working with the All India Radio. She was allotted a Government quarter on 2.12.1998 in Andrews Ganj (hereafter called 'the flat'). It is averred that pursuant to a complaint by someone that the petitioner had sublet the flat unauthorizedly, investigations were carried out, and a show -cause notice issued. Subsequently, the show - cause notice was dropped/recalled. On 20.12.2000 another show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner, alleging that she had sublet the flat in contravention of rules; her response as to why the allotment ought not to be cancelled and further action be not taken, was elicited. The petitioner sought for information including a copy of the complaint, through her letter dated 12th March, 2001, after responding to a notice of personal hearing. Subsequently, by order dated 11.4.2001, the respondents cancelled the allotment and directed imposition of damages as also as ordered that the petitioner would be ineligible for debarred from future entitlement to Government accommodation. The petitioner appealed. During pendancy of the appeal, the flat was inspected on separate occasions, including on 24.7.2001, 29.8.2001 and 8.9.2001. On the first occasion, the premises were found locked; and on the last occasion the report indicated that the petitioner as well as to other persons were found. The report indicated that there was no subletting. Another inspection was carried on 5.11.2001 which also reported that the inspecting team did not suspect any subletting. In this background, the petitioner's appeal was partly allowed. The appellate authority set aside the direction regarding ineligibility for future allotment and further disciplinary action. However, the direction for recovery of damages was confirmed.

(3.) THE principal grounds on which the impugned action of the respondents have been questioned in these proceedings are that the action was motivated and result of proceedings carried out in utter violation of principles of natural justice; the petitioner was not furnished copies of the complaint nor even given a proper hearing by the authority which passed the order in the first instance. The petitioner has averred that in fact the authorities have misconstrued the facts and acted in an arbitrary manner since there was no subletting on the first instance even on the admitted material on record as her brothers were found in the premises in the course of one or the other inspection. It is averred that mere residence of a blood relation such as a brother with the petitioner cannot lead to an inference of subletting.