WA 385/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Amitava Roy, J The appellant-petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 08.05. 2008 and 17.05.2008 issued by the Asstt. Engineer (Bldg) BSNL and Sub-Divisional Engineer (Bldg) BSNL respectively, is in appeal being aggrieved by the order da ted 04.08.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 1956/2008. 02. We have heard Mr. AC Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitio ner and Mr. M Das, learned Standing Counsel Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for sh ort hereafter referred to as the BSNL). 03. The pleaded case of the appellant-petitioner, in brief, is that he had been serving as a driver with the BSNL since 17.02.1982 and is presently attached to the General Manager of the said organization and posted at Panbazar, Guwahati. As an incidence of service, the petitioner had been allotted the off icial Quarter No. Ty-II/22 (Ground Floor) at LS Road, Panbazar. The respondent No. 6 on 03.03.2008 having lodged a complaint against him alleging that on 01.03 .2008, he and his family members had abused and manhandled him (respondent No. 6 ), an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer appointed, on the completion o f the enquiry, which included recording of statements of witnesses, submitted hi s report, whereafter the General Manager, BSNL, the disciplinary authority of th e petitioner by his order dated 24.03.2008 issued warning to him and cautioned h im against recurrence of such conduct. He was also directed to tender unconditi onal apology to the respondent No. 6 within the time specified. 04. The appellant-petitioner, accordingly, when approached the respo ndent No. 6 to offer his apology, the latter declined to accept the same. It wa s, thereafter, that by the impugned order dated 08.05.2008 issued by the Asstt. Enginer (Bldg) BSNL, O/o. Chief General Manager Telecom, the petitioner was aske d to shift his accommodation from Panbazar to Type-II/BI-III, Quarter No. 12 at Wireless Compound, Dispur, Guwahati. The petitioner submitted a representation a gainst the said order contending, inter alia, that the step taken, was penal in nature and on the basis of the allegations made against him in complaint dated 2 5.03.2008 submitted before the General Manager, BSNL by All Assam Mohila Samanna ya Parishad, Guwahati. By the order dated 17.05.2008, also impugned in the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner was communicated the factum of rejection of his representation and he was thereby required to shift to the new quarter, fail ing which the allotment was contemplated to be cancelled. By the said order, it was further clarified that the warning accorded to him was not a punishment as pleaded by him in his representation. 05. The official respondents in their affidavit asserted, inte alia, that the conduct of the appellant-petitioner, even after the submission of the enquiry report was not desirable vis-a-vis the respondent No. 6 and the other oc cupants of Type-II quarters at LS Road, Panbazar as reported and, therefore, in the interest of discipline and harmony, it was decided to shift him to another q uarter at Dispur. While doing so, the fact that the appellant-petitioner had, i n the meantime, completed 18 years at Quarter No. Ty-II/22 (Ground Floor) at LS Road, Panbazar, was also taken note of. Further, the respondent No. 6 also had submitted an application on 23.04.2008 before the Branch Secretary, BSNL, GMT al leging intimidations and threats extended by the appellant-petitioner to him. T he complaint had been duly forwarded to the GMT, Kamrup Telecom District, Guwaha ti as well. According to the official respondents, in response to the requests made by other members of the staff for accommodation in the Panbazar area, one S ri PN Prasad has been allotted the petitioner’s quarter. The respondents denied the imputation that the impugned order dated 08.05.2008 had been issued being a ctuated by the complaint submitted by All Assam Mahila Samannay Parishad and BSN L Employees Union, GMT, Office Branch. It was further pointed out that the peti tioner’s children are studying in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Khanapara, School and t hat they would not be inconvenienced incase he shifts to the official quarter at Wireless Compound, Dispur. 06. In his affidavit-in-reply, the appellant-petitioner while admitt ing the fact pertaining to the School of his children, contended that as they ar e attending various tutorial homes situated in an around Panbazar, it would be v ery difficult for them to pursue their coaching classes from Dispur BSNL Compoun d. He also stated that he being attached to the General Manager, Kamrup, Guwaha ti, whose quarter is at Panbazar, having regard to his round the clock duty, his stay at Wireless Compound, Dispur would pose a serious impediment in that regar d. 07. The learned Single Judge on a scrutiny of the pleadings of the p arties and the arguments advanced, by the order impugned in the instant appeal, has negatived the challenge. 08. Mr. Buragohain, has emphatically urged that it being apparent on the face of the record that the impugned orders have been passed acting on alle gations leveled against the appellant-petitioner behind his back, the same are v itiated by violations of the principles of natural justice and on that count alo ne the same are liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge having left ou t of a consideration this aspect of the assailment, the same also warrants inter ference in the interest of justice, he urged. Mr. Buragohain, without prejudice to the above, has pleaded that in case this Bench is not inclined to sustain th e pleas raised on behalf of the appellant-petitioner, in view of the ensuing ann ual examinations in which his (petitioner) children are scheduled to appear, he may be allowed to stay in the present Quarter No. Ty-II/22 (Ground Floor) at LS Road, Panbazar till April, 2009. 09. The learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has maintained that the impugned orders having been passed in the exigencies of the service and to ensure discipline and amity amongst the staff of the Organisation, the learn ed Single Judge very rightly refused to interfere. As the appellant-petitioner is residing in the residential quarter at Panbazar for the last 18 years and his shifting to Wireless Compound, Dispur would not cause any inconvenience to him or his family members, no interference, as prayed for, ought to be made, he urge d. 10. The pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised on the b asis thereof, have received the due consideration of this Court. Admittedly, on a complaint made by the respondent No. 6 against the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and on the completion thereof, the appellant-petitioner was issued a warning. He was also cautioned against recurrence of such undesirable conduct a nd behaviour. Noticeably, the appellant-petitioner has not questioned the valid ity of the process leading to the said disciplinary action against him. The mat erials on record suggest that accusations of the petitioner’s unruly and bellige rent conduct vis-a-vis the respondent No. 6 and his family members, even thereaf ter, were made before the concerned authorities of the BSNL, so much so that it was felt exigent to shift him from his quarter at Panbazar in the interest of or ganizational discipline and to restore a congenial working condition. By the or ders impugned, the petitioner has not been deprived of an accommodation. The sa me cannot be construed to be a punitive measure, per se. If the concerned autho rities on an assessment of the prevailing facts and circumstances have deemed it expedient to shift the appellant-petitioner, who has by this time resided for 1 8 years in his official quarter at Panbazar, elsewhere, the same cannot ipso fac to, unless tainted by mala fide be repudiated and denounced as illegal, unfair a nd oppressive. He has not denied either the length of his stay in the present qu arter at Panbazar as asserted by the respondents. The demand for an opportunity of representation or hearing as an inflexible precondition for the validity of every administrative action as a prescription of the rule of natural justice, if entertained, it would have a crippling effect on the prosecution of the day tod ay institutional affairs. The fact situation having demanded an immediate actio n, the respondent authorities have catered to the same in a way deemed most expe dient. No trace of malafide is discernible. It is not denied by the appellant- petitioner that his children are presently studying in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Kh anapara, School. In that view of the matter, the respondents’ contention that t hey would not suffer any additional disadvantage, if he is required to put up in the quarter at Dispur BSNL Compound cannot be lightly brushed aside as frivolou s. 11. On a consideration of all above, we are unable to persuade ourse lves to take a view different from the one adopted by the learned Single Judge. Though, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that his ch ildren are going to appear in Board Examinations, no pleadings, as such, is avai lable. In the above view of the matter, the prayer for postponement of his shif ting to the quarter at Wireless Compound, Dispur till April, 2009, does not comm end for acceptance. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.