IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6572 of 2009 NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 22/5/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner, working as an Instructor in Bhagalpur Engineering College, Bhagalpur, has assailed an order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the Principal of the College cancelling allotment of Quarter No. NG 11 as also stoppage of one increment. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the earlier order of allotment of Qr. No. 11 in place of Qr. No. 14 the petitioner had already taken steps for vacating Qr. No. 14 while taking possession of Qr. No. 11 and that there was no ill intention on his part much less to retain both the quarters. Counsel would further submit that the order of stoppage of one increment has been passed without following the provisions of Disciplinary and Appeal Rules and also without giving any notice and/or opportunity of hearing to him. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was a Government servant and was entitled at best to occupation of one quarter and when he was allotted Qr. No. 11 on 23.12.2008 with a clear stipulation to take charge of the quarter within a period of ten days it was expected of him that he would vacate Qr. No. 14 earlier allotted to him in the period of ten days 2 and would occupy Qr. No. 11. He would further submit that the petitioner was clearly guilty of both in subordination and occupying two quarters for a period over three months and as such, on this admitted misconduct on the part of the petitioner the impugned order stopping payment of his one increment cannot be said to be illegal. There can be no two opinion that the petitioner has committed a misconduct by forcibly remaining in occupation of two quarters i.e. Qrs. No. 11 and 14, but then the counsel for the petitioner would submit that as Qr. No. 11 was not fit for habitation and certain repair works were required to be done before the petitioner could have shifted permanently from Qr. No.14 to Qr. No. 11. The Principal of the College was at least required to give him an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard has given an undertaking that the petitioner will vacate Qr. No. 14 within a period of one week from today i.e. on or before 30.5.2009. Considering the aforementioned facts as also by taking into account that stoppage of one increment of the petitioner is punishment in terms of Discipline Control and Appeal Rules and could not have been inflicted without a show cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing, this Court will have no other option but to quash the impugned order only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. In case the Principal of the College of the petitioner 3 would find that the petitioner has not vacated Qr. No. 14 by 31st of May, 2009 he will not only pass an order for cancelling allotment of Qr. No. 11 to the petitioner but would also be at liberty to initiate proceeding against the petitioner for inflicting suitable punishment for disobedience of the order and is remaining in unauthorized occupation of two quarters i.e. Qrs. No. 11 and 14. It is, however, made clear that for the period the petitioner had remained in occupation of both Qrs. No. 11 and 14, he would be liable to pay the penal rent for one of the quarters at the market rate which must be paid by him within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar/Surendra (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)