(1.) The petitioner is working as a daftri in the RailwayBoard, New Delhi. In September, 1984 he was given an out of turn allotmentof quarters bearing No. 46-WC in the Pusa Complex, New Delhi. The petitioner took possession of the premises on 9-10-1984, but states that, on accountof certain personal difficulties, he did not occupy the premises or even obtainedelectricity and water connections in respect thereof, but instead applied to theAdministration for change of accommodation. This application was pending.ID the meantime, on 5-6-1985, he received a notice from the Deputy Directorof Estates that "as a result of the enquiry, it had been reported that the petitioner had given the quarters in question to certain unauthorised persons on(Para 10)rent". He was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why he shouldnot be asked to vacate the quarters, made ineligible for further governmentaccommodation for a period of three years and why certain other penal ordersshould not be passed against him. The petitioner filed a reply on 13-6-1985.On 5-7-1985 the Deputy Director of Estates passed an order cancelling theallotment of the above quarters to the petitioner, directing him to vacate thepremises in question and to pay a penal rent in case he continued to occupythe quarters thereafter. He was also declared ineligible for government accommodation for a period of three years. These consequences followed from afinding in the order :
(2.) When the matter came up before us on an earlier occasion, it wassubmitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had not been given areasonable opportunity of showing that he had not at all sublet the premisesas alleged by the respondents. It was pointed out that for the first time inthe reply filed on behalf of the respondents it was stated that the petitionerhad sublet the quarters in question to one Tej Pal Singh, who was employedin the Pusa Institute and staying in the quarters. The petitioner's submissionwas that Tej Pal Singh was actually residing in quarters bearing No. 45 and notin the quarters allotted to the petitioner. It was also submitted by the respondents that an eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 13-1-1986and forcible eviction had to be resorted to as the premises were found lockedas it was learnt that the party had gone away with all his luggage withouthanding over the vacant possession to the C.P.W.D.
(3.) When the matter came up for hearing before us on 8/01/1987the respondents pointed out that they had acted on a report received from anInspecting Officer. We found that no opportunity had been given to thepetitioner to show that he had not let the quarters to Tej Pal Singh who wasreported to be residing in the quarters in question. Counsel for the respondents thereupon agreed that they would conduct an enquiry without prejudiceto the contentions of the writ petition. We, therefore, adjourned the writpetition and directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry and also to giveof an apportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations made against him.