LAXMINARAYAN DIXIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Laxminarayan Dixit assailing the Order Annexure P/1 passed by the Central Administrative tribunal, Jabalpur in O. A. No. 922/04 on 6. 5. 05.

(2.) THE facts in short are that Laxminarayan Dixit was posted as Senior Store Keeper at C. O. D. Kanpur on 13. 4. 98. He was alloted Government accommodation i. e CPWD quarter at Gulmohar Vihar, Kanpur. He occupied the quarter on 19. 12. 98. He was then transferred to C. O. D. Jabalpur from Kanpur. He was relieved from Kanpur on 6. 10. 01 and joined at Jabalpur thereafter. It is alleged that he did not surrender the CPWD quarter at Kanpur and instead submitted a forged vacation report to secure relieving from C. O. D. Kanpur and got relieved. The case set-up by the petitioner was that he vacated the quarter and produced the vacation report from the Office of Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Kanpur. However, Shri M. K. Gupta, junior Engineer Kanpur had given a letter dated 4. 2. 02 under his signature that vacation report is forged and does not bear his signature. Correspondence was entered into with the authorities and C. O. D. at Jabalpur. They advised the petitioner to obtain the vacation certificate and settle the matter otherwise he would be liable to pay the rent and interest or market rent. As no attention was paid by the employee, the CPWD issued a letter to the Commandant, C. O. D. Jabalpur for recovery of rent with effect from September,2001 onwards at normal rent for the first two months and thereafter at market rate. Consequently, the recovery of Rs. 2,605/- has been started from the salary of the petitioner with effect from July,2004. The same was assailed before the tribunal. It was submitted that petitioner was charge-sheeted for submitting a forged vacation report in order to get relieving from Kanpur for which he has been punished with reduction of pay by two stages for three years in the departmental inquiry which was held and an order of punishment was passed on 17. 1. 05. The aforesaid punishment was assailed. The appeal has been rejected on 20. 1. 06. It was not open to impose the double punishment as the major punishment was already imposed. The tribunal held that the recovery of rent and misconduct of submitting the forged vacation report are two different matters. The petitioner is liable to pay the rent who is found guilty of sub-letting the accommodation and submitting a false vacation report to secure his relieving from Kanpur to Jabalpur.

(3.) SHRI Akash Choudhary, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that when punishment was imposed in the departmental proceedings of reduction of pay by two stages for three years, recovery of rent could not have been ordered for the same accommodation. Even otherwise, it could have been done in the course of departmental inquiry itself. The action of demand of rent amounts to double jeopardy.