ORDER :

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Order No. 2016/Sig/Ban/Jai Bharathi dated 09.03.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in all their future tenders.

The Writ Petition had been filed by Jai Bharathi Constructions represented by its Proprietor Mr. Surender Reddy, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders of the first respondent, Executive Director (Signal Projects), Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi, in Order No. 2016/Sig/Ban/Jai Bharathi dated 09.03.2018 and consequently, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in future tenders.

2. The petitioner claims to be a contractor carrying on business of executing 'Signal and Telecommunications' Contracts/Projects with various Departments of the Indian Railways. He claims to have successfully completed several contracts. The respondents, by Tender Notice No. SG/Proj/2011/09(OT) dated 25/08/2011, dated 25.08.2011 had called for open tenders for the following work:-

“Signalling Arrangements in connection with the proposed Thokkur bye-pass and year works and station building with new panel at Panambur-Phase-II”.

3. The petitioner participated in the tender on 29.09.2011 and after negotiations, the Railway Tender Committee recommended that the contract work can be awarded to the petitioner. The respondents, by Letter of Acceptance dated 24.02.2012 awarded the contract for a sum of Rs.1,57,29,116/- and an agreement dated 09.08.2012 was also executed. It is stated that the contract was also successfully completed before 25.06.2013 and a certificate was also issued on 09.04.2014.

4. It is also stated that on 21.03.2012 the Railway Deputy Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer, Mr. Nithin Prakash, who had issued the Letter of Acceptance deposited Rs.98,000/- into his personal bank account at Punjab National Bank, Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore. It was found that 15 of the notes of Rs.1,000/- each were counterfeit. A complaint was given to the Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore. A criminal case was registered against the said Railway officer. In his explanation, he stated that the source of the funds was a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- which he had availed from the petitioner.

5. The investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Wing. They conducted investigation and finally found that there was no evidence to initiate prosecution. However, they filed a Final Report as follows:-

“(a). Investigations has not revealed any violation or deviation in approving the Tender by A-1 (i.e., the Railway Officer) in favour of A-2 (i.e. the Petitioner).

(b). The Police had not recovered any money or pay-in-slips from the A-1 (i.e. the Railway Officer).

(c) No 'prosecutable evidence' whatsoever is available on record to place before the Hon'ble CBI Court for taking cognizance of any of the charges against the two accused.”

Further they advised the Southern Railway to initiate department action against the said officer for misconduct under the Railway's Services Conduct Rules 1969 and to keep the petitioner under black-list.

6. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a memorandum on 27.12.2016 and also issued a statement of Imputation of Charges charging the petitioner with violating Clause 18(2) of the Railway's General Conditions of Contract which prohibits transactions between the Railway servant and Contractor. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 09.02.2017. However, an order was passed on 09.03.2018 banning the petitioner for a period of three years. It is under these circumstances, questioning that order, the present Writ Petition had been filed.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it had been stated that the petitioner had been awarded contract for the work of 'Signalling arrangem