An administrative authority may initiate debarment proceedings based on a formal chargesheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as such actions are preventative, not punitive, and do not require awaiting a final criminal conviction to ensure the integrity of public procurement.

O R D E R

% 08.01.2026

1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 18.11.2025 and supplementary order dated 26.12.2025 (hereinafter “Impugned Order”), whereby, the petitioner has been debarred for a period of nine months, as against a maximum period of 3 years, by the respondent.

2. The petitioner-company is a listed company claims to be engaged in engineering and construction sector for over 80 years while the respondent company is a Maharatana Public Sector Enterprise of the Government of India, and is India’s largest Electric Power Transmission Utility.

3. It appears that the respondent invited bids in a tender for two transmission works projects in Rajasthan (collective “the Projects”). The petitioner participated in the said tender, and was declared as the lowest bidder. Accordingly, a Notification of Award was issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner on 15.02.2021.

4. The petitioner and the respondent, thereafter, in relation to the said Projects executed two Integrity Pacts dated 24.03.2020 wherein both committed to take all measures to prevent corruption. The two projects, were completed and commissioned on 21.12.2024 and 15.10.2024. The ‘Taking Over Certificate’ showing completion was issued by the respondent for the projects on 03.02.2025 and 28.12.2024. Thereafter, importantly, on 19.03.2025, the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) registered an FIR against one Mr. Uday Kumar, Senior Manager of the respondent, four employees of the petitioner, and the petitioner itself under Sections 7 -10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (“PC Act, 1998”), alleging involvement in illegal gratification for official works related to the Projects awarded by the respondent in the state of Rajasthan.

5. The final Chargesheet in the said case came to be filed, whereunder Uday Kumar, is purportedly the main accused, while names of certain employees of the petitioner, working on the subject matter of the Project have also been included.

6. In light of these events, on 22.07.2025 the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) to the petitioner alleging, inter alia, violation of the Integrity Pact by the petitioner on account of corrupt practices undertaken during the Projects, and requiring the petitioner to show why the petitioner should not be blacklisted/banned.

7. The said SCN, which is exceedingly detailed and specific, notes that since chargesheet has been filed, the petitioner has violated, inter alia, — (1) Bidding Documents, Clause 36 of Section II: Instruction to Bidders, Vol 1, which provides “it is the Employer’s policy that requires the Bidders, suppliers and contractors and their subcontractors under the contracts to observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement and execution of such contracts.”; and (2) Integrity Pact, which provides under Section II:

“(1) The Bidder/ Contractor commits itself to take all measures necessary to prevent corruption. The Bidder/ Contractor commits itself to observe the following principles during its participation in the tender process and during the contract execution:

(a) The Bidder/ Contractor will not, directly or through any other person or firm, offer, promise or give to any of POWERGRID’s employees involved in the tender process or the execution of the contract or to any third person any material or other benefit which it is not legally entitled to, in order to obtain in exchange an advantage of any kind whatsoever during the tender process or during the execution of the contract. …

(c) The Bidder/Contractor shall not pass any information provided by POWERGRID as part of