IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTIAL WRIT PETITION NO. 112 (MS) OF 2009 Mohan Chandra Kothari ………….Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. ………….Respondents. Mr. M.C. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Arivnd Vashisth, Advocate for the respondent no.1 to 3. 11th February, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhuali, J. Heard Mr. M.C. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashstha, Advocate for the respondent no.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner is a pump-operator (F.G.M.) in the Indian Air Force Establishment at Bhawali, District Nainital. The post, admittedly, is of civilian nature and the petitioner is a civilian working in a Defence Establishment. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th December, 2008, which has been passed by Additional Garrison Engineer of Air Force at Bhawali, by which the petitioner has been directed to vacate the official accommodation, which has been given to him as there are complaints against the petitioner that he is spoiling the atmosphere of the campus. In the counter affidavit filed by the Air Force Establishment, the complaints, which have been mentioned in the impugned order, have been annexed. 4. At the time of arguments, however, a consensus has been reached between the parties that in case the petitioner does not misbehaves in future and does not give rise for any further complaints; the authorities are willing to withdraw the impugned order dated 26th December, 2008. The petitioner himself is present in person before this Court and is represented by his counsel. The petitioner has given undertaking that he shall not misbehave in future. 5. Considering the fact that the punishment, at this stage, may be rather harsh on the petitioner inasmuch as in case the petitioner is evicted from his inasmuch as in case the petitioner is evicted form his official accommodation, it is not just the petitioner but his entire family, who shall bear the brunt and shall suffer. This Court also appreciates the efforts of the counsel, who have come to consensus and also of the Officer of the Air Force Mr. R.G. Verma, who is also present in person before this Court. 6. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner and in view of the assurance given by the Air Force Establishment that they shall withdraw the order dated 26the December, 2008, the writ petition stands infructuous and is disposed of as such. 7. This is, however, not without a caution to the petitioner, who shall be careful in future and will not give any cause of concern to the Authority concerned. In case, the petitioner misbehaves in future, then the authorities are free to take any action including disciplinary action against the petitioner, for which they are authorised under the law. (Sudhanshu Dhuali, J.) 11.2.2009 Rathour