The court established that a final punishment had been imposed on the respondent based on the investigation's findings, preventing a second punishment for the same irregularities.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

1. The appellants have filed the present intra-court appeal, impugning an order dated 21.01.2020 (hereafter 'impugned order'), passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 4847/2019, captioned M/s Machine Tools (India) Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.'

2. The respondent had preferred the said writ petition, being W.P.(C) 4847/2019, to assail a letter dated 19.12.2018, whereby the respondent was black listed from participating in any tenders floated by the appellants for a period of five years.

3. The respondent's principal ground of challenge to the said letter dated 19.12.2018 was that it had already suffered punishment on the basis of the allegations that are the subject matter of the said letter. It is the respondent's contention that the respondent could not be vexed twice on the same allegations in the given set of facts.

The factual context

4. Appellant no. 2 (Diesel Locomotive Works, workshop of Indian Railways located in Varanasi) is an undertaking of the Government of India and functions directly under the Ministry of Railways.

5. Appellant no. 1 had floated a tender for supply of Flux, inviting bids from authorised dealers/ distributors. One of the eligibility conditions required that the tenderer should either be an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or an authorised dealer/ distributor of OEM or should be specifically authorised by OEM for bidding in the said tender.

6. The respondent participated in the bidding process and in order to substantiate that it satisfied the eligibility criteria, furnished a letter dated 09.04.2015, purportedly issued by Lincoln Electric Company, USA (OEM). This letter was found to be forged in as much as Lincoln Electric Company, USA denied that it had issued any such letter in favour of the respondent.

7. The Vigilance Department of the appellants conducted an investigation and found that the respondent had furnished a false letter to fraudulently claim that it satisfied the eligibility criteria.

8. Thereafter, on 12.11.2015, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent. The said Show Cause Notice specifically called upon the respondent to show cause as to why its business dealings with appellant no. 2 as well as Indian Railways, should not be banned and its name not be removed from the list of approved suppliers on account of submitting forged documents.

9. The respondent replied to the said Show Cause Notice. It appears that the respondent did not contest that the document submitted by it was forged. It, however, claimed that one of its employees (one Mr. Mohammad Shaheen Khan), had uploaded the certificate on its own and without authorisation. The respondent also stated that it was initiating action against the said delinquent employee.

10. On the receipt of the said Show Cause Notice, the respondent issued an order dated 19.12.2015, de-listing the respondent company from the list of "MMT Vendor List", for a period of two years from the date of order.

11. Subsequently, on 26.04.2016, the appellant issued another Show Cause Notice, proposing to blacklist the respondent for a period of five years on the same allegations - that the respondent had furnished a forged letter to satisfy the eligibility criteria for participating in the bidding process. Thereafter, on 19.12.2018, appellant no. 2 issued a letter blacklisting the respondent in respect of any business with the appellants for a period of five years with effect from 19.12.2018. As noted above, being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, the respondent preferred a writ petition which was allowed in terms of the impugned order.

Impugned order

12. Learned Single Judge found that the order dated 19.12.2015 issued by appellant no. 2, was not in the nature of a temporary suspension, pending inquiry but was a final order imposing the punishment of removing the respondent's name from the list of approved vendors for a period of two years. The learned Single Judge also found that the said orde