FRAUDULENT DENIAL OF QUARTER OCCUPATION DISPROVED BY FORENSIC ANALYSIS JUSTIFIES RECOVERY OF OCCUPATIONAL CHARGES

The applicant, a Group 'C' Railway employee, was allotted Railway Quarter No. 182/4 5, Type-II at Tindel Bagan, Howrah, via an order dated 01.08.2012

While the respondents claimed the applicant took possession on 24.11.2012, the applicant contended the quarter was in a dilapidated condition and he never occupied it

Consequently, no House Rent Allowance (HRA) was deducted until April 2022, when the respondent authorities began recovery following the implementation of an online quarter module

The applicant challenged these deductions, claiming his signatures on the occupation reports were forged

1. Whether the applicant was in actual physical occupation and possession of the allotted Railway Quarter

2. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in recovering occupational charges and house rent from the applicant's salary

The court applied the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, specifically Section 5(6), allowing a Single Member Bench to dispose of the matter

It relied on the evidentiary principle regarding the authenticity of documents and signatures, utilizing expert testimony under the guidance of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) to establish facts in dispute

The core principle applied was that a government servant in possession of allotted official accommodation is liable to pay the prescribed license fee/house rent as per Railway service rules

The court's resolution hinged entirely on the veracity of the applicant's signature. While the applicant denied occupying the premises, the respondents produced a "Report on Inventory of Electrical Fittings" and a "Quarter Occupation Register" dated 24.11.2012, both bearing the applicant’s signature

To resolve the allegation of forgery, the Tribunal directed a forensic examination by the CFSL, Kolkata

The CFSL report conclusively established that the signatures on the inventory report and the original allotment acknowledgement belonged to the applicant

By connecting this forensic evidence to the respondents' claim, the court determined that the applicant had misled the tribunal regarding non-occupation. Consequently, the delay in recovery (from 2012 to 2022) was attributed to the applicant’s failure to submit an occupation report to his bill unit, and not to any illegality by the respondents

The court found the recovery of house rent from the applicant’s salary to be legally justified. The Original Application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded