Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.K. JAIN, J.
WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD. – Petitioner
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5444 of 2013 & CM No.12164 of 2013 (Stay)
Decided On : 16.09.2013
Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath & Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advs.
Ms. Zubeda Begu, Standing Counsel GNCTD with Ms. Sana Ansari & Mr. Prem Kumar, Advs.
An order entailing civil consequences must contain reasons for the decision within the order itself and cannot rely on external evidence.
Headnote:
Premature Termination - Security Services - None
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner provided security personnel at ISBT, Kashmere Gate pursuant to a contract extended up to 30.9.2013. The respondent asked the petitioner to withdraw its personnel, citing discrepancies in their functioning. The petitioner sought to quash the respondent's letter and continue working.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the termination of the contract to be arbitrary and illegal due to lack of reasons for premature termination in the order. It set aside the impugned order but allowed the respondent to pass a fresh order based on previous notices.
Issues: Premature termination of contract, lack of reasons for termination, discrepancies in security personnel's functioning
Ratio Decidendi: An order entailing civil consequences must contain reasons for the decision within the order itself and cannot rely on external evidence. Premature termination without providing reasons is arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 16.8.2013 is set aside, but the respondent is allowed to pass a fresh order based on previous notices.
V.K. JAIN, J.
The petitioner has been providing security personnel at ISBT, Kashmere Gate pursuant to the work awarded to it on 30.9.2011. Initially, the work was awarded for twelve (12) months only but later on it was extended up to 30.9.2013, vide communication dated 28.9.2012. Vide letter dated 16.8.2012, the Estate Manager, DTIDC Limited, Kashmere Gate informed the petitioner that the work of comprehensive maintenance of ISBT had been awarded to BVG India Limited, which was expected to start the work shortly and, therefore, it should withdraw its security personnel from ISBT, Kashmere Gate and vacate the site within a week’s time so that it could be handed over to BVG India Limited. Being aggrieved from being asked to withdraw its security personnel even during the subsistence of the contract, its validity being till 30.9.2013, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“i. Quash and set aside the letter dated 16.8.2013 issued by the respondent.
ii. Direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to work in terms of respondent’s letter dated 28.09.2012.
iii. Pass any other order that is deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. A perusal of the counter affidavit and the documents annexed thereto show that a notice dated 6.3.2013 was issued to the petitioner, enumerating therein various discrepancies found during the routine inspections of its work in 2-3 months preceding the notice. The following were the discrepancies mentioned in the said notice:
“1. No name wise attendance register was available with the supervisors deployed by you.
2. As per terms and conditions of the agreement/contract the antecedents of security staff deployed by the security agency were to be got verified from local police authorities but no record in this regard could be made available.
3. During checking it was found that some of the security persons were wearing shabby uniforms.
4. Some of the security persons were not having their name badges.
5. No curriculum vitae (CV) in r/o staff deployed by the security agency was available during inspection.
6. During the course of inspection it has come to notice that 33% manpower from the category Ex-serviceman has not been deployed by you.
7. As per condition of the agreement at least one female security guard is to be deployed at every entry/exits of ISBT in each shift but it has been noticed that female security guards are deployed only in day time.
8. Security staff were not having torches, cells, lathis/ballams and other implements as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the contract.
9. No walkie-talkie was found made available with security supervisors/security guards to ensure effective timely communication between them.
10. During inspection it revealed that the wages are being paid/disbursed to the security staff in cash while as per conditions of the contract same should be paid through cheques.
11. During inspection it is also observed by the undersigned that the security guards were not present on the locations assigned to them particularly at the ISBT’s Sarai Kale Khan & Anand Vihar, so it is directed that the security guards should be available on the duties assigned to them by the Estate Managers as per agreed locations.”
The petitioner was directed to comply with the observations immediately. He was further intimated that if no reply is received within seven (7) days necessary action shall be initiated for closure of the contract.
3. It appears that the petitioner did not respond to the aforesaid notice. Another notice dated 23.5.2013 was then issued to it, referring to the inspections made on 18.12.2012, 19.12.2012 & 4.3.2013 and intimating it that the deficiencies mentioned therein were found during the course of the aforesaid inspections. The following were the deficiencies pointed out in this notice:
“1. None maintenance of attendance register by the contractor for day to day deployment of security personnel.
2. Non verification of ant
