(who were finding it extremely difficult for getting shelter), to reside in his 'quarter' and that he had never obtained any consideration, remuneration or rent in this regard. It is also pointed out that, even going by the contents of the Circulars/instructions issued by the Railways, even if there is any instance of subletting, if the same is in favour of an employee of the Railways, the proceedings can be pursued only as applicable in the case of imposing of a 'minor penalty', whereas, in the instant case, the steps pursued by the Railways are in relation to imposition of a 'major penalty'. The answer given by the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways in this regard is that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the subletting effected by the first respondent/applicant was in favour of an employee of the Railways, but three different instances were there and three different families were inducted at different points of time. It is also pointed out that such delinquency continued for nearly one decade and by virtue of Clause No.3 as contained in the very same Circular, each case has to be considered separately, depending upon the facts and circumstances and as such, it was open for the Railways to have invoked the said clause. Learned counsel also points out that finalisation of disciplinary action is not a 'sine qua non' to order realisation of 'damage rent',
