SAIDUR REHMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following reliefs have been sought in this O.A.: -

(2.) THE respondents have seriously contested the O.A. by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit. According to them, the applicant was posted as substitute Cleaner at Diesel Loco Shed, Alambagh, Lucknow and was allotted Quarter No. LD 14/A running shed Colony, Alambagh, Lucknow. Thereafter, applicant was appointed on the post of Box Porter vide letter dated 20.8.96. But he never joined. It has been denied that the applicant was declared surplus but his transfer to Varanasi has been admitted. No denial has been made of para 4.5 of O.A. regarding representation by the applicant for retaining of quarter for 3 years and its rejection for the first time on 3.10.2011. It has also not been specifically denied that without deciding his above representation for retention of quarter, a charge sheet was issued as averred in para 4.6 of the O.A. Merely it has been said that he was unauthorized occupant of the Railway Quarter and therefore, he was asked to vacate the accommodation (but no such documents filed). But he did not vacate. After service of the charge sheet, the applicant had demanded certain documents which were supplied vide letter dated 9.10.2010 (not filed). Though aforesaid para 4.5 of O.A. was not denied as already mentioned before yet in reply to para 4.10 and 4.11 of the O.A., it has been merely said that he never represented for retention of the quarter in question (This plea is against record because rejection order dated 3.10.2011 (Annxure -1) shows that representation was given and it was rejected. Lastly according to respondents, the order of removal was rightly passed by the Disciplinary Authority against which the applicant did not file any statutory appeal. Instead he rushed to this Tribunal to file this O.A. in violation of Section 20 of the AT Act. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.