CSS DEOPA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Jai Malanath Security Services was empanelled with the Directorate General of Settlement on 21st November, 2005. The said empanelment was renewed on 12 th December, 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said empanelment was open ended in the sense that it was not to expire in a particular time period. Vide communication dated 27th January, 2011, issued by Joint Director (Employment), the petitioner was disempanelled, for violation of para 37(b) of DGR instructions. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: -

(2.) IN their counter -affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was empanelled on 21st November, 2005, after he had taken pre - mature retirement from Indian Navy. According to the respondents, the ceiling limit of allocation of guards to individuals proprietary security agency is 300 guards cumulatively in a four year period or 63 years of age of the proprietor, whichever is earlier. It is further stated that the petitioner had already availed his quota of 300 guards but he did not disclose correct strength in his N -2 Returns. He had shown only 100 guards in his N -2 Returns whereas he has crossed the limit of 300 guards which he did not disclose to respondents. As regards disempanelment of the petitioner without any notice or hearing, it is stated in the counter -affidavit that no show -cause notice is required to be issued to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of his empanelment.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 13th August, 2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 428/2012 titled Appaches Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner who was empanelled with the Directorate General of Resettlement (in short "DGR") was disempanelled without following the principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved, he filed the aforesaid writ petition. When the attention of the learned counsel for the respondents was drawn to the fact that no show -cause notice or opportunity of hearing had been given to the aforesaid petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated, on instructions, that they would withdraw the impugned letter and issue a fresh show -cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to answer the allegations against him. The impugned letter was, therefore, set aside with a direction that the respondent No.2 shall issue a show -cause notice if he so deems fit and the said show -cause notice also indicates that the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing. The date, time and venue of the hearing were also required to be specified in the notice.