Imposition of damage charges for unauthorized occupation without prior show-cause notice violates principles of natural justice.

The applicant, a Senior Auditor, was initially allotted House No. C-31 in 2017

In March 2021, he requested a change to a ground-floor accommodation of the same type due to family hardships, which the competent authority granted by allotting House No. C-21 on 29.09.2021

After the applicant allegedly took possession in October 2021, the respondents issued a speaking order on 24.12.2021, cancelling the allotment and declaring him an unauthorized occupant

This was based on the ground that the applicant had concealed a previous 2019 offer for change of accommodation (House No. C-01) which he had declined, thereby exhausting his right to a change under departmental rules

Consequently, the respondents ordered a recovery of ₹1,45,600 as damage charges from his salary

The applicant challenged these orders, asserting that the new allotment was validly made after departmental scrutiny and that no show-cause notice was issued before the cancellation

1. Whether the applicant exhausted his right to a change of accommodation under Rule 30 of the DAD Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2019, by declining a previous offer in 2019

2. Whether the respondents' action of declaring the applicant an unauthorized occupant and imposing damage charges without a show-cause notice or statutory proceedings was legally sustainable

Rule 30(2) of the DAD Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2019 limits an allottee to only one change in the same type of accommodation

Rule 30(6) of the DAD Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2019 stipulates that failure to accept an offer within eight days bars further consideration for that type

Rule 30(8) of the DAD Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2019 provides that the previous allotment is deemed cancelled automatically upon the physical occupation of a newly allotted accommodation

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which mandates specific procedures for declaring occupancy as unauthorized

Principles of Natural Justice requiring a hearing before adverse administrative action

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ reliance on Rule 30(6) to bar the applicant was misplaced because the competent authority had consciously processed the 2021 application and granted the allotment after verifying records

Any alleged "concealment" by the applicant was deemed secondary to the department's own lapse in scrutiny during the allotment process

The court highlighted that under Rule 30(8), once the applicant occupied C-21, the allotment of C-31 was legally terminated, negating the charge that he held two houses simultaneously

Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the respondents bypassed the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and failed to issue a show-cause notice, rendering the declaration of "unauthorized occupation" and the subsequent damage charges arbitrary and violative of the principle of audi alteram partem

It held that the applicant’s occupation of House No. C-21 is authorized and directed the respondents to refund any damage charges already recovered from the applicant's salary within three months

The court concluded that administrative actions entailing civil consequences must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory eviction procedures