Point of law: Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India not only requires compliance of principles of natural justice but due application of mind also and complete fairness in procedure and fairness in procedure means not only issuance of notice for the cause for which the proceedings is drawn to the affected but also due consideration of the reply submitted to the show cause notice and evaluation of the same in correct perspective

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Suman Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, Dr. Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State respondent no. 1 and perused the record.

2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 02.09.2019, 04.09.2019 and 06.09.2019.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given any notice much less a show cause notice prior to passing of orders which have resulted in adverse civil consequences.

4. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order debarring the petitioner from entering into any agreement or contract for a period of three years, amounts to blacklisting and in view of this, he submits that no order of blacklisting could have been passed without giving prior notice or show cause to the petitioner in respect of such a proposed action. He further argued that forfeiture of the security amount has also been without due consideration of his reply and is therefore, not to be sustained in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the argument has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ - C No. 41505 of 2015 decided on 20.02.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paras 18, 19 & 20 of the said judgment.

5. We made a pointed query from learned counsel for the respondents regarding the above factual and legal position.

6. In reply, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is that the petitioner was given a notice on 20.08.2019 which was to the effect that the explanation was required from the petitioner regarding anomalies committed and on being not satisfied or in case if the notice not duly replied to, the petitioner would be held guilty and the appropriate orders will be passed for blacklisting of the petitioner. Needless to say, as it is also argued, that forfeiture of the security amount was liable to take effect automatically in view of the terms and conditions of agreement reached between the parties.

7. However, from the orders impugned in this petition, we do not find that the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner dated 26.08.2019 finds any reference. The settled legal position is that even in an an administrative decision making process, the justice and fair play demands that not only notice be given to the parties aggrieved, but reply submitted by the parties should be duly considered. There has to be a due application of mind to the reply and explanation submitted by the party to the show cause notice.

8. In the light of terms and agreement as have reached between the parties which provide for forfeiture of security and blacklisting we take notice dated 20.02.2018 to be a valid notice in the form of show cause of the proposed action.

9. In the case of M/s. Vindhyawasini T. Transport v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ - C No. 14505 of 2015, a Division Bench, of which one of us (Ajit Kumar, J.) was member, has quoted para 21 of the judgment of Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105, which reads as under:

"21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of Show Cause Notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not wa