IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17506 of 2005(S) ------------------------------------ OA.335/2002 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH ................................................ PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION. 3. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.SC,RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. K.S.A.NAZEERUDEEN, DIESEL ASSISTANT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CONNOOR, NOW WORKING AS LOCO PILOT (GOODS) GRADE II, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, COONOOR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.T.A.RAJAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 17506/2005 S APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 335/2002 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DT. 1/10/2002 IN OA NO. 335/02 FILED BY THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29/07/2004 IN OA NO. 335/02 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PENALTY ADVICE DT. 10/10/96 VIDE NO. J/MP 555/J/M 2299/OVR VC. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.17506 of 2005-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. The respondents in O.A. No.332/2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, have filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The issue that arises is whether the action of the petitioners herein in initiating recovery of damage rent amounting to Rs.2,47,661/- against the respondent on the ground of alleged sub-letting of his quarters, is correct or not. 2. The respondent was working as Loco Pilot (Goods) Grade II at Coonoor. The allegation against him is that he had sub let his quarters to an employee working as EDDA, named Jagannathan who was working in the P & T Department. The basis of the allegation is a vigilance check on 26.5.1996. Earlier, he was issued a communication dated 9.5.1997 proposing recovery of damaged rent against which he filed O.A. No.690/1997 which was allowed in his favour. The petitioners challenged the same in Writ Petition No.18401/2000. This court granted permission to the Railways to issue fresh notice to the applicant and proceed in WPC 17506/2005 -2- accordance with law. Accordingly, the subsequent proceedings have been initiated. 3. The Tribunal, in its order found that apart from the mere allegation in the notice which is stated to be based on a vigilance check, there is nothing by way of tangible evidence against the applicant. It is also found that in spite of the direction in the judgment in O.P.No.18401/2000, actually no enquiry was conducted with sufficient opportunity to the applicant. What was issued was only a notice proposing recovery of a huge amount. In that view of the matter, the O.A. was allowed. 4. We heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. It is contended that fresh notice was issued as per the permission granted by this court in O.P.No.18401/2000 and hence the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. In the judgment in O.P.No.18401/2000, the writ petition was disposed of recording the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners may be given permission to issue fresh notice to the respondent and to proceed in accordance with law, which was granted. It is important to notice that later the matter was not proceeded in accordance with law. The mere sending of a notice thereafter was not at all sufficient, especially when the applicant has denied the alleged subletting. Except the mere assertion in the notice, there was nothing against him. No enquiry was conducted as to WPC 17506/2005 -3- the veracity of the allegation against him. Therefore, the reliance placed on the judgment in O.P.No.18401/2000 cannot be sustained. When a person is proceeded against in respect of an allegation of subletting of his quarters, he is entitled to know the materials relied on against him and he should be given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his defence. What was attempted by the petitioners is to straight away issue a notice showing the amount of damaged rent and only seeking explanation before effecting the recovery. A reading of Ext.P1 order shows the same. For all these reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ WPC 17506/2005 -4- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 17th March, 2008. WPC 17506/2005 -5-