Government cannot levy damage charges retrospectively for periods during which license fees were recovered.

The applicant, an Inspector in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was allotted government accommodation in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, on December 24, 2007

On April 1, 2013, he was transferred to Jammu, where he joined on April 2, 2013

While posted in Jammu, the applicant was convicted in a criminal case on July 26, 2014, and subsequently dismissed from service effective August 25, 2014

He continued to occupy the Delhi accommodation until July 13, 2018

The respondents issued an order on June 29, 2018, retrospectively cancelling the allotment from the date of his transfer (April 2, 2013) and demanding damage charges totaling ₹26,22,420/-

The applicant challenged this demand, asserting that license fees were deducted from his salary while in Jammu and that the retrospective cancellation was illegal

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in retrospectively cancelling the government accommodation and levying damage charges from the date of the applicant's transfer (April 2, 2013) despite the deduction of license fees from his salary

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to a concessional period of retention following his transfer and subsequent dismissal under the applicable rules

3. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter given it pertains to the recovery of damage rent

Rule XI of the CBI Allotment of Residences Rules (Revised), 1988, which stipulates permissible periods for retention of accommodation: two months upon transfer to a station outside the place of duty and one month upon dismissal or removal from service

legal principle established by the Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., which mandates that a petitioner must approach the court with "clean hands" and disclose all material facts

Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963, regarding the authorization of occupation

The Tribunal found that the respondents' demand for damage charges starting from the date of transfer (April 2, 2013) was unsustainable because the applicant was entitled to a two-month concessional retention period under Rule XI(2)(iv) of the CBI Rules

evidence showed that the respondents continued to deduct license fees from the applicant’s salary while he was posted in Jammu, which contradicted their claim that his occupation was "unauthorized" from the date of transfer

The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to vacate the premises within the one-month grace period following his dismissal on August 25, 2014, as required by Rule XI(2)(i)

While the applicant claimed he sought an extension, he provided no proof of approval

The Tribunal also criticized the respondents for "utmost carelessness," noting they allowed a dismissed official to occupy government housing for nearly four years without taking timely action

The Tribunal held that damage charges could not be levied from the date of transfer but only from the expiry of the concessional period following dismissal

Respondent No. 1 was directed to: (a) re-work the damage charges from September 24, 2014 (one month post-dismissal) to July 13, 2018 (date of vacation); (b) decide on the release of withheld retiral dues after adjusting the revised charges; and (c) initiate departmental action against officials responsible for the administrative lapse that allowed the unauthorized stay to go unnoticed for four years