Ramesh Chand Sharma vs The Commissioner Of Police And ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 932 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. In these petitions a challenge has been laid by the Petitioners to the discontinuance of their services on daily wage basis by the Delhi Police.

2. The Petitioner, Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, had also ventilated his grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Singh who had returned the finding that a proper opportunity had been given to the Applicant to defend his case. Having considered the matter in all its complexities I see no reason to depart from that view.

3. The Petitioner, namely, Shri Dalvir Singh, was employed on daily wages in a Scheme introduced in February, 1986 which may be styled as the "Pre-paid Taxi/TSR Service" introduced at the Delhi Airport and now available at various other points in the metropolis. This Scheme was conceived by the Delhi Traffic Police in order to alleviate the problems faced by commuters in connection with the malaise of overcharging visitors to the city and/or refusing to take them to their destinations if the fare was considered by the Driver to be unattractive. It appears that the Respondent had received a complaint from Shri S.A. Krishnan who, at the relevant time was an officer of the Central Bank of India, Mumbai, against a fellow worker of the Petitioner, namely, Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, who was posted at New Delhi Railway Station (Ajmeri Gate) on the date of the occurrence of an incidence which has led to the termination of his services. The allegation against Shri R.C. Sharma is that on 21.1.2000 he had overcharged Shri S.A. Krishnan. The services of Shri Sharma were terminated on 23.3.2000. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) had found that Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma had not given any plausible explanation regarding cheating and overcharging the Complainant. The contention is that an Inquiry had not been held and, therefore, the termination Order is vitiated.

3. So far as Shri Dalvir Singh is concerned he was served a Show Cause notice in April, 2000 on the ground that he had threatened Shri Krishnan to withdraw the Complaint filed against Shri R.C. Sharma. His services were terminated vide Order dated 30.5.2000. Another Deputy Commissioner of Police(Traffic) had come to the conclusion that Shri Dalvir Singh was, in fact, involved in telephonically harassing the Complainant, namely, Shri S.A. Krishnan with a view to get him to withdraw his Complaint.

4. In the case of Shri Sukh Pal Singh the allegation against him was that he had not deposited cash amounting to Rs. 1,02,212/-. The Petitioner was served a Show Cause Notice dated 23.2.2000. His services were terminated vide letter dated 19.7.2000. He had also ventilated his grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Singh who had returned the finding that a proper opportunity had been given to the Applicant to defend his case. Having considered the matter in all its complexities I see no reason to depart from that view.

5. The charge against Shri Rajiv Kumar is that he had represented to the commuter that he had only received Rs. 50/-, whereas he had received Rs. 100/-. The Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice on 30.5.2000 and his services were terminated on 19.7.2000. The Complainant, Shri A.S. Ahluwalia, had stated in the Inquiry that he had paid Rs. 100/- to Shri Rajeev Kumar who returned him only Rs. 20/-, although the fare was Rs. 27/- only. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) had come to the conclusion that Shri Rajiv Kumar had cheated the Complainant.

6. In respect of Shri Jitendra Kumar the allegation is that two passengers had enquired about the fare to Janpath Hotel and were told by the Petitioner that it was Rs. 230/-. This sum, however, was taken from both the passengers, although they travelled in the same Taxi and, therefore, Ms. Sport had been cheated of Rs. 230/-. The Petitioner was given a hearing and after due consideration the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) found that the charges against Jitender Kumar were substantiated. The Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice on 7.2.2002. His services were terminated on 13.8.2002.

7. In respect of Shri Harish Kumar the allegation is that he cheated Mr. Bennet Pinto, the Complainant, of Rs. 400/-. The Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 18.7.2002. His services were terminated on 13.8.2002. The complainant had stated in the Inquiry that he had given a note of Rs. 500/- to the prepaid counter staff who slipped Rs. 500/- note inside the counter and put Rs. 100/- note at the counter and asked him to pay more as the fare is Rs. 290/-. The Petitioner was given a hearing and after due consideration the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) found that the charges against Jitender Kumar were substantiated.

8. In the case of Gurdeep Singh the allegation is that the fare in question was Rs. 70/- and the Commuter/Complainant, Ms. Jacki Hickman, who was serving at the Australian High Commission, gave him 100/- rupee note. The services of the Petitioner were terminated on 15.3.2000. He thereupon asked him about the quantum of luggage and after she looked away towards her luggage, substituted 100/- rupee note with 50/- note. The Petitioner told the Complainant that he had received only Rs. 50/-. The Complainant confirmed the incident to the Officer conducting the Inquiry. The Deputy Commissioner of Police had come to the conclusion that no satisfactory explanation had been given in that the Petitioner was guilty of cheating.

9. The nature of the Petitioners employment has been considered by this Court in detail in W.P. (C) No. 1127 of 1994 titled Prepaid Taxi/TSR Workers Association v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. The conclusion that had been arrived at was that the services of the Petitioners as well as other persons similarly employed did not entitle them to any regular or permanent employment. While it is correct that the interim Orders had been passed in that Writ Petition protecting the services of the employees under the Pre-Paid Taxi/TSR Scheme, the limited benefits given by means of that Judgment would not inure to the Petitioners, since their services have already been terminated. The Petitioners, would, therefore, continue to be daily wagers and in these circumstances the meticulous rigour of holding an Inquiry would not be attracted.

10. The scope of judicial review is a limited one and interference is called for if the conscience of the Court is shocked and the impugned decision is found to be unsustainable on the face of the record.

11. I am unable to arrive at this conclusion in the factual matrix presented in this Petition. The Petitions do not call for the interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.