SATPAL SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 21.11.2023
Judgment delivered on: 04.12.2023

+ W.P.(C) 14984/2023 & CM APPL. 59828-59829/2023
SATPAL SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mehmood Pracha and Mr.Jatin Bhatt, Advocates with Petitioner-in-person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Pradeep Kumar Jha, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr.Rahul Kumar Sharma, G.P. for UOI.
Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mrs.Taniya Ahlawat, Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.Laavanya Kaushik, Ms.Aliza Alam and Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to orders dated February 24, 2023, in OA No. 3649/2022 and order dated November 03, 2023 in RA No. 50/2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), whereby the OA and review application were dismissed. In nutshell, petitioner preferred the OA for setting aside order dated July 21, 2021 cancelling the allotment of Quarter No. J-3, Type-II, NPL, allotted to him and upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated November 16, 2022.
2. In brief, petitioner who is posted as an ASI in Delhi Police was allotted Govt. Quarter No. J-3, Type-II, NPL, Delhi w.e.f. September 01, 1990. A Show Cause Notice dated February 12, 2021 was issued to the Petitioner by the Allotment Officer, as to why allotment of aforesaid quarter should not be cancelled pursuant to two complaints submitted by his neighbour Sh. S. K. Singh, then DCP/Ops. & Communication, regarding unauthorized construction carried by raising illegal boundary-wall on the back side of the said Govt. Quarter and occupying pavement opposite the House No. E-5 Type-IV in occupation of Sh. S. K. Singh. Petitioner is also stated to have unauthorizedly opened a gate on Pambari Road on the back side of the said quarter, whereas the legal entry was from the other side as recorded in spot inspection conducted on January 14, 2021. Further, petitioner kept flower pots / plants over the unfinished boundary wall but an iron gate was still found affixed along with bricks on the back side of the said Govt. Quarter, thereby violating the provisions of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015.
3. In response to the Show Cause Notice dated February 12, 2021, petitioner forwarded reply letters dated February 16, 2021 and February 19, 2021, averring that he had been residing in the said flat since 1990 with the family members and the gate is in existence since the date of allotment. Similarly, gates were stated to have been erected at the back side of several quarters in blocks A to P in the complex. The complaint is stated to have been filed by Sh. S. K. Singh, DCP despite unauthorized construction existing in the accommodation occupied by him. In the additional reply vide letter dated February 19, 2021, stand was taken that the accommodation had been earlier allotted to his father and on his superannuation, the same was regularised in favour of the petitioner in the year 1990. Further, the process of construction of wall was undertaken at instance of wife of Sh. S. K. Singh, since the land was earlier covered by a hedge and the plants and pots were placed on the hedge to protect his family from stray animals. Allegations of high handedness were made against the family of Sh. S. K. Singh on casteist lines claiming that the petitioner belongs to a weaker section of the society.
4. DCP, Genl. Admn., Delhi vide order dated July 21, 2021, after taking into consideration the report of DCP/1st Bn. DAP dated June 18, 2021, cancelled the allotment of quarter in favour of petitioner, holding that the petitioner had unauthorizedly constructed a boundary-wall on the pavement, which has since been removed. However, two rooms and an iron gate with car shed still unauthorizedly existed in the back side of the said quarter, which is clear violation of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015. Besides above, it was also recorded that the petitioner had not been maintaining harmonious relations with the neighbours, which is also a violation of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015 and there had been various complaints and counter-complaints, due to which peace and harmony of the colony had been disturbed, despite efforts having been made by the superiors to settle the dispute. In support, reference was also made to FIR No. 351/21 dated July 19, 2021 filed at behest of petitioner and cross-FIR No. 352/21 dated July 20, 2021 registered at behest of Sh. S. K. Singh.
5. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated July 21, 2021 was further dismissed by Special Commissioner of Police, vide order dated November 16, 2022.
6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders of cancellation of allotment of quarter allotted to petitioner, OA No. 3649/2022 was preferred by the petitioner, but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated February 24, 2023. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by way of W.P.(C) 3524/2022, in the first round of litigation which was disposed of by this court vide order dated March 29, 2023 as under :
“1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated February 24, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal) in O.A. No.3649/2022.
2. The only ground urged by Mr. Pracha is the one which is recorded by us in the order dated March 21, 2023 which reads as under:-
“2. One of the submissions of Mr. Mehmood Pracha, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Original Application (‘O.A.’ for short) was initially listed before the Tribunal on January 24, 2023 and thereafter was adjourned to February 03, 2023. According to him, the O.A. was not listed before the Tribunal on February 03, 2023 instead was listed on February 07, 2023 as was noticed by the counsel from the cause list.
3. According to Mr. Pracha, the Tribunal without hearing the counsel has reserved the case for orders.
4. According to Mr. Pracha, the petitioner had filed an application for placing on record the written submissions and also sought an opportunity to argue the matter. The said application was not listed. Finally vide the impugned order the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A.
5. Mr. Pracha prays that the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal to enable him to argue the matter before the Tribunal.”
3. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Pracha has also drawn our attention to pages 11 & 12 of the petition, more particularly paragraphs (i), (j), (k) & (l). In substance, it is his plea that he could not rebut the submissions made by the respondents before the Tribunal.
4. If that be so, the petitioner should have filed a review petition seeking review of the order of the Tribunal on this ground. So, we dispose of the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition on or before April 06, 2023 which shall be listed before the Tribunal on April 11, 2023. The Tribunal shall hear the petitioner/parties on the review petition and decide the same in accordance with law.
5. Petition is disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of.”
7. The review application preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal registered as RA No. 50/2023 stands dismissed vide order dated November 03, 2023. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated February 24, 2023 in OA No. 3649/2022 and order dated November 03, 2023 in RA No. 50/2023.
8. It has been brought to our notice that the premises allotted to the petitioner have been got vacated after the dismissal of the Review Application in compliance to letter dated November 09, 2023 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Police to the concerned DCP, North-West District, Delhi.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions raised before the Tribunal and submits that the order had been passed by the concerned authorities in an unreasonable manner violating the principles of natural justice as the enquiry report dated June 18, 2021 and the two alleged complaints made by Sh. S. K. Singh were not provided to the petitioner. The impugned orders passed by the DCP and the Appellate Authority are also stated to have taken into consideration, the additional ground that the filing of complaints and counter-complaints had led to disturbance of peace and harmony of the colony and demonstrated strained relations with neighbours which amounted to violation of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015. Also, the grounds regarding carrying of unauthorized construction of two rooms etc. are stated to have been wrongly taken into consideration by the competent authority as it existed much prior in time.
Complaints are alleged to have been malafidely filed by Sh. S. K. Singh and the action is stated to be arbitrary at the instance of a Senior Officers. Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015 is further contended to have delegated excessive unfettered discretion to the Allotment Officer. The impugned order for cancellation of allotment is claimed to have been passed despite removal of unauthorized construction by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that after shifting of Sh. S. K. Singh, the possibility of disharmony is ruled out.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that on receipt of two complaints by Sh. S. K. Singh, the then DCP/Ops. & Communication addressed to DCP/1st Bn. DAP (i.e. Estate Officer) regarding construction by occupants of Quarter Nos. J-2 and J-3, Type-II, New Police Lines, a spot enquiry was conducted by Addl. CsP/AP-I & II on January 14, 2021. The same revealed that occupant of Govt. Quarter No. J-2, Type-II (ASI Shiv Singh) raised illegal boundary wall occupying the pavement on Pambari Road. Also, the allottee of Govt. Quarter No. J-3, Type-II (ASI Sat Pal Singh / petitioner) had raised a boundary wall on the back side of his quarter occupying the pavement opposite to the house of Sh. S.K. Singh (E-5, Type-IV). Petitioner also had unauthorizedly opened a gate at Pambari Road on the back side of his Quarter, though the legal entry in the Quarter is from the other side and a few flower pots alongwith bricks were kept on the back side of the Quarter. The construction is stated to have been stopped by the petitioner on the directions of Senior Officers, but the flower pots / plants were kept over the unfinished boundary wall and the iron gate also stood fixed.
11. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondents that a Show Cause Notice was accordingly issued to both the occupants of Quarter Nos. J-2 and J-3, Type-II, New Police Lines (i.e. SI Shiv Singh & ASI Sat Pal Singh / petitioner) proposing the cancellation of allotment of the Govt. Quarters. A show cause notice for cancellation of quarter was also issued to Sh. S. K. Singh, DCP on March 03, 2021 on account of unauthorized construction of one room by covering back space of Govt. Quarter No. E-5, Type-IV. The allotment of quarter, in favour of Sh. S. K. Singh, is also stated to have been further cancelled vide order dated July 21, 2021 and in compliance of the same, the quarter was vacated on November 01, 2021.
The gist of allegations is stated to have been specified in the Show Cause Notice dated February 12, 2021 which also came to the knowledge of the petitioner by virtue of earlier notice of removal of unauthorized construction issued by Competent Authority. The speaking order dated July 21, 2021 is stated to have been passed by the Competent Authority cancelling the allotment in terms of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015 after duly considering the factum of unauthorized construction undertaken by the petitioner and considering that the petitioner and Sh. S. K. Singh did not have harmonious relations, due to which, the general law and order situation of the colony had been impacted. The photographs of the premises filed on record are stated to be evident of factum of unauthorized construction.
12. Learned Tribunal vide order dated February 24, 2023, for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 7 to 9, was of the opinion that neither there is any miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice by the Competent Authority, while cancelling the allotment of Quarter No. J-3, Type-II, allotted to the petitioner and the provisions of paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015 were squarely attracted in the case. The same may be reproduced for reference:
“7. I have gone the records of the case thoroughly and heard the arguments carefully. It is admitted fact that there was disharmonious atmosphere in the residential colony of Police Line because of frequent quarrels between the applicant and Shri S.K.Singh, DCP. This is sufficient reason to re-locate the officials from the present government quarters to alternative accommodations. But in the instant case, it has been proven by the spot report dated 14.1.2021 by Additional Commissioner of Police and subsequently detailed report by DCP 1st Bn. DAP Delhi dated 3.2.2021 that all the three occupants of government quarters the present applicant (J-3 Type –II), Shri Shiv Singh ASI ( Quarter No. J-2 Type-II) and Shri S.K.Singh, DCP (Quarter No. E-5 Type –IV) were found to have unauthorized construction in the respective government quarters. Whether additional two rooms and one iron gate with a car shed was constructed by the present applicant in Quarter No. J-3 Type-II or it was constructed by his father or his predecessor is a matter of detail. When the matter came to his notice, it was his bounden duty to inform that these additional construction existing in his quarters. Instead of that, the applicant started to demand the copy of lay-out plan of quarter No. J-3 Type II from the Police Authorities. Whether the present applicant has constructed the additional two rooms as well as the iron gate is immaterial. It has been proved from the inquiry report that he has also unauthorizedly constructed the boundary wall and unauthorizedly opened a gate towards Pambri Road. In view of this, the provisions of para XXVI of SO No.03/2015 are squarely attracted in case of the present applicant.
8. Moreover, before taking any action, adequate notice had been given to the applicant and he had been given opportunity to put his case before the competent authority and the appellate authority. In view of this, there is no miscarriage of justice and or violation of principle of natural justice by the competent authority while cancelation of the allotment of quarter No. J-3 Type-II to the present applicant.
9. In view of above, the OA is without merit and hence it is dismissed. No order as to costs.”
Also, order dated November 03, 2023 on Review Application passed by the Tribunal, takes note of the contentions reiterated on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and it was observed that neither any relevant new fact had been brought on record nor there is any factual error in order dated February 24, 2023.
13. We have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Competent Authority cancelling the allotment is bad in law since the copy of the report conducted by the DCP was not provided to him as well as the show cause notice did not specifically refer to the fact that the absence of harmonious relation between him and Sh. S. K. Singh resulted in violation of paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015. Consequently, it is contended that the conclusions drawn by the competent authority as well as appellate authority could not have formed the ultimate decision of cancelation of allotment order.
14. It may be noticed that the SO No. 03/2015 for allotment of residential accommodation on the charge of the Delhi Police, has been issued in pursuance of the recommendations of the Police Commission contained in paragraph 10 of the report read with Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Letter No.25/70(DPG-14) P.I. dated November 17, 1968 and powers vested under section 19 (c) and 27 of the Delhi Police Act of 1978. The same is in supersession of SO Nos.03/2010 and IIIA/2010 issued by the Police Headquarter on October 31, 2010 and October 19, 2010 as amended from time to time.
In terms of paragraph III(c) of the said SO, the Deputy Commissioner of Police General Administration is the ‘Allotment Officer’ and is empowered to cancel the order of allotment in case of retirement/death/ removal/dismissal from service and on request of allottee as well as in the case of non-acceptance of Government Quarter or on receipt of complaint after enquiry. Paragraph III(q) further defines the Estate Officer of Distts/Units and also provides that the Estate Officer of the Colony will visit the residential complexes every fortnight and ensure that no unauthorised construction is made in the colony under his/her jurisdiction. Paragraph VIII(a) lays down that allotment officer shall be competent to issue orders of cancellation/vacation of all types of quarters and initiate eviction proceedings in respect of all types of quarters. It may further be noticed that paragraph XII also provides for regularisation of allotment of quarters in certain circumstances and on retirement of a government servant regularisation may be made to his/her son/daughter/spouse/daughter-in-law, if the government servant was an employee of the Delhi Police and his son/daughter/spouse/daughter-in-law is also an employee of Delhi Police. The same has been referred since the petitioner in the present case claims that the accommodation was regularised in 1990 in his favour after initial allotment to his father.
Paragraph 24 of the SO No. 03/2015 deals with maintenance of residence and provides that a Govt. servant to whom a residence has been allotted, shall maintain the residence premises and the surrounding area in a clean condition to the satisfaction of the Estate Officer, Public Works Department, New Delhi, Municipal Committee, Municipal Corporation of Delhi or Municipal Committee of Cantonment Board as the case may be and failure to do so shall render him/her in-eligible for continued retention of the residence.
15. We may further refer to paragraph XXVI of the SO No. 03/2015, which provides for the conditions for cancellation of allotment after issuance of Show Cause Notice without prejudice to any other disciplinary action that may be taken against the allottee as under:
* If the allottee raises an unauthorized construction/structure in and around the residence; or
* uses the residence/surroundings or part thereof for any purpose other than for which it is meant; or
* tampers with the electric or water connection; or
* violate the terms and conditions of the allotment; or
* uses the residence or premises or permits or suffers the residence or premises to be used for any purpose which the Allotment Officer considers to be improper; or
* conducts himself/herself in a manner which in hi s opinion is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmonious relations with his/her neighbours; or
* knowingly furnishes incorrect information in any application or written statement with a view to securing the allotment the Allotment Officer.
It further lays down that where action to cancel the allotment is taken on account of unauthorized construction of the premises by the allottee, a period of 60 days shall be allowed to the allottee.
16. Reverting back to the facts of the case, it is imperative to notice that as per the respondents, the detailed events were recorded in communication dated February 03, 2021 by Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, 1st Bn. DAP addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, General Administration, PHQ. The proceedings are stated to have been initiated on filing of two separate complaints by Sh. S. K. Singh, the then DCP, Ops. and Communication on December 22, 2020 and January 11, 2021 regarding unauthorised construction of boundary walls by the occupants of Government Quarter No. J-2 (SI Shiv Singh) and Quarter No. J-3 by ASI Satpal Singh /petitioner herein. Also petitioner was reported to have unauthorisedly opened the gate at Pambari Road opposite the house of said Sh. S. K. Singh. The same had consequently resulted in difficulty for parking as well as for moving of vehicles. It was further referred in said communication that on inquiry into the allegations by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 1st BN. it was revealed that on November 13, 2020 the unauthorised construction had been detected by SI Prem Bir alongwith SI Manmohan while checking the PWD repair work and a DD No. 11B dated November 13, 2020 was recorded in this regard. Further, on November 25, 2020 no new construction by occupant of J-3 i.e. petitioner was found but flowers pots were kept. Unauthorised construction is also stated to have been found in Q. E-5, allotted to Sh. S. K. Singh, DCP. Further, a show cause notice dated December 22, 2020 and December 31, 2020 are stated to have been served on occupants of quarter No.J-2 (SI Shiv Singh) and quarter No.J-3(ASI Satpal/petitioner) directing to remove the unauthorised construction but the same was not complied and as such a letter dated January 08, 2021 was sent by Estate Branch, 1st Bn. to DCP/GA for taking necessary action. It was also informed therein that due to encroachment, the relations between the parties are strained and several calls and complaints are recorded. Further, the unauthorised construction of two rooms with one iron gate and car shed are stated to have been found.
17. On the face of record, the Show Cause Notice dated February 12, 2021 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, General Administration to the petitioner, duly reflects in detail, the factum of raising of illegal boundary wall on the back side of the quarter and refers to the opening of unauthorized gate on Pambari Road, though the legal entry was from the other side. The Show Cause Notice also fairly notices that the petitioner had stopped the construction of wall but still kept flower pots / plants over the unfinished boundary wall though there is no specific reference to the factum that the relations of the petitioner with Sh. S. K. Singh were no longer harmonious leading to violation of provisions laid down in paragraph XXVI of SO No.03/2015.
18. We are of the considered view that since the show cause notice had been duly issued prior to passing of the impugned cancellation order by the competent authority, the scope of judicial review would be limited to ascertain if the petitioner was prejudiced by the non-supply of the report which was taken into consideration prior to passing of cancellation of allotment letter or if there was no material before the competent authority to draw the conclusion against the petitioner or the conclusions could not have been made by a reasonable person or if the finding was based on no evidence.
19. At the outset, it may be recorded that the authorities do not appear to have acted one sidedly or with bias against the petitioner, since the Show Cause Notice was duly issued to the petitioner, SI Shiv Singh as well as Sh. S. K. Singh, then DCP on similar lines. The action was initiated as per the obligations cast upon the allotment officer/Estate Officer in accordance with the provisions laid down in SO No. 03/2015. Due notice for stoppage of unauthorised construction was earlier issued to the petitioner vide letter dated December 22, 2020 and also cautioned that the further process of cancellation of government accommodation will be initiated. The same was followed by the second notice dated December 31, 2020 since the petitioner continued to carryout unauthorised construction. Evidently the photographs as well as the earlier DD entries in this regard duly confirm that the process of unauthorised construction of the boundary wall was initiated by the petitioner, which is in clear violation of paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015. Even if the stand of the petitioner is accepted that the unauthorised construction of two rooms alongwith car shed were made prior to regularisation of the premises in 1990, which was earlier allotted to his father, the same does not absolve him of the violation committed by him by carrying out of unauthorised construction of the boundary wall contrary to SO No. 03/2015.
In the facts and circumstances, the inference drawn by the Competent Authority cannot be said to be based on ‘no evidence’ or that the conclusions could not have been drawn by any reasonable person. The photographs relating to carrying of unauthorized construction in the premises are self-speaking and belie the stand of the petitioner. Mere reference and non-supply of the report of the DCP which was undertaken to ascertain the factual position does not prejudice the petitioner in any manner since the particulars were clearly reflected in Show Cause Notice. It may not be possible to lay down any rigid rules or principles of natural justice in straitjacket formula and the same depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The fair play in action remains the edifice of any inquiry which is a flexible, pragmatic and relative concept guided by reason and has been duly followed by the respondent by issuing of Show Cause Notice. However, it may be observed that though the relations apparently became strained between petitioner and Sh. S. K. Singh, then DCP due to allegations/counter allegations and registration of cross FIRs, consequent to raising of unauthorised construction by petitioner, the same ought to have been referred in Show Cause Notice before concluding that the same were pre-judicial to the maintenance of harmony. Since, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order for cancellation of allotment is primarily sustainable on account of raising of unauthorised construction by the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned cancellation order of allotment passed by the Competent Authority and confirmed by Appellate Authority.
20. Learned counsel for petitioner has further challenged the vires of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015. We are of the opinion that Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015 has been issued in public interest to ensure that the allotted premises are not misused by way of unauthorized construction by the officials of a disciplinary force and are also expected to maintain harmonious relations. As such, we do not find any reasons to hold that the aforesaid paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015 is in violation of constitutional principles, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner.
21. An alternate accommodation of the same category has also been offered to the petitioner, which to our mind duly takes care of the concerns that the petitioner is not left in lurch. Further, the petitioner cannot claim parity of action taken against SI Shiv Singh, since the harmonious relations between the petitioner and Sh. S. K. Singh stood strained beyond a point, leading to registration of cross FIRs and repeated complaints. It cannot be ignored that similar action stands initiated against Sh. S. K. Singh, DCP who has since shifted from the premises allotted to him.
22. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the order passed by the Tribunal. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2023/R

W.P.(C) 14984/2023 Page 1 of 17