The suspension order must comply with the pre-conditions stipulated in the Guidelines on Banning of Business Dealings, provide specific allegations, and adhere to the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of excavation and transportation of steel as well as recovery of proceedings of mine scraps from slag dump sidings and segregation of fractional scrap from slag/debris. The petitioner came out successful in a tender issued by the respondent no. 3 on behalf of the respondent no. 1, that is, the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) for the work of recovery of ferrous scrap and steel scrap for internal use and sale of processed ferrous scrap, etc. from slag dump sidings of the Bokaro Steel Plant in Jharkhand.

2. Subsequently, the petitioner did work as per the contract. The time for completing the work was extended from time to time by formal extension of the work order. After completion of the work, the petitioner asked for Completion Certificate from the respondent-Authorities.

3. All on a sudden, on June 12, 2023, an Office Order was communicated to the petitioner intimating that the petitioner was found to have committed malpractices and was being considered for being banned of future business dealings by the Bokaro Steel Plant. Further, all future business dealings with the petitioner were suspended till December 11, 2023/further orders in this respect.

4. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the said Suspension Order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order, although couched as a Suspension Order, was in effect an order of banning.

6. Banning, it is argued, is governed by Clause 7 of the Guidelines on Banning of Business Dealings, which is a part of the Integrity Pact between SAIL and the bidders which, in turn, is a part of the tender document. Clause 7.4 thereof provides for a prior Show-cause Notice before an action of banning is taken. In the present case, no such Notice was given to the petitioner, thereby vitiating the impugned order.

7. It is next argued that even if the Order is treated to be one of suspension, the same is governed by Clause 5 of the Agreement which contemplates that the allegations made against the concerned Agency, for the purpose of suspension, are to be under investigation for offence of a serious nature. Pendency of investigation is a sine qua non for such suspension. In the present case, no such pendency was indicated in the impugned Suspension Order.

8. Even in the affidavit-in-opposition subsequently filed in connection with the writ petition, the respondents have indicated that an investigation/enquiry at the instance of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was concluded prior to the advice for suspension being given. Thus, at the juncture when the Suspension Order was passed, there was no pending investigation, which violates Clause 5.1.

9. The gravity of the misconduct under investigation is to be very serious under Clause 5.4. Clause 6 and its sub-clauses provide the grounds for banning of business dealings which are also to be treated to be the yardsticks for suspension. However, none of the said grounds are met in the present case.

10. It is argued that no specific offence or allegation was disclosed in the suspension order, thereby depriving the opportunity to the petitioner to defend itself.

11. Learned counsel places reliance on Eurasian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and another, reported at (1975) 1 SCC 70 in support of the proposition that blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of Blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. In the present case, such objective satisfaction is missing. It is further argued that the Supreme Court held in the said cited judgment that the fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklis