Black Listing – Show cause Notice – Non- mention of Black listing in the proposed notice – whether it causes prejudice or not – High court held that No prejudice is caused as pleaded by Respondent – Apex court held that In the first instance, we may point out that no such case was set up by the respondents that by omitting to state the proposed action of blacklisting, the appellant in the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. Moreover, had the action of black listing being specifically proposed in the show cause notice, the appellant could have mentioned as to why such extreme penalty is not justified. It could have come out with extenuating circumstances defending such an action even if the defaults were there and the Department was not satisfied with the explanation qua the defaults. It could have even pleaded with the Department not to blacklist the appellant or do it for a lesser period in case the Department still wanted to black list the appellant. Therefore, it is not at all acceptable that non mentioning of proposed blacklisting in the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. =CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7167-7168 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 38898-38899 of 2013) GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S) = 2014 -Aug.part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41804

Black Listing – Show cause Notice – Non- mention of Black listing in the proposed notice – whether it causes prejudice or not – High court held that No prejudice is caused as pleaded by Respondent – Apex court held that In the first instance, we may point out that no such case  was  set  up by the respondents  that  by  omitting  to  state  the  proposed  action  of blacklisting, the appellant in the show cause  notice  has  not  caused  any prejudice to the appellant. 

 Moreover,  had  the  action  of  black  listing being specifically proposed in the show cause notice,  the  appellant  could have mentioned as to why such extreme penalty is  not  justified.  It  could have come out with extenuating circumstances defending such an  action  even if the defaults were there and the Department was  not  satisfied  with  the explanation  qua  the  defaults.  It  could  have  even  pleaded  with   the Department not to blacklist the appellant or do it for a  lesser  period  in case the Department still wanted to black list the appellant. Therefore,  it is not at all acceptable that non mentioning  of  proposed  blacklisting  in the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to  the  appellant.  =

interesting question  of  law  pertaining  to

the form and content of show cause notice, that is required  to  be  served,

before deciding as to whether the noticee is to be blacklisted  or  not.

We

may point out at the outset that there is no quarrel between the parties  on

the proposition that it is a mandatory  requirement  to  give  such  a  show

cause notice before black  listing.

It  is  also  undisputed  that  in  the

present case the show cause notice which was given for  alleged  failure  on

the part of the appellant herein to commence/  execute  the  work  that  was

awarded to the  appellant,  did  not  specifically  propose  the  action  of

blacklisting the appellant firm. 

The question is  as  to

whether  it  is  a

mandatory requirement that there has to be a stipulation

contained  in  the show cause notice that action of blacklisting is proposed?

If  yes,  is  it

permissible to discern it from the reading of impugned  show  cause  notice,

even when not specifically mentioned, that the appellant understood that  it

was about the proposed action of blacklisting that could  be  taken  against

him?=

In the first instance, we may point out that no such case  was  set  up

by the respondents  that  by  omitting  to  state  the  proposed  action  of

blacklisting, the appellant in the show cause  notice  has  not  caused  any

prejudice to the appellant. 

Moreover,  had  the  action  of  black  listing

being specifically proposed in the show cause notice,  the  appellant  could

have mentioned as to why such extreme penalty is  not  justified.

It  could

have come out with extenuating circumstances defending such an  action  even

if the defaults were there and the Department was  not  satisfied  with  the

explanation  qua  the  defaults.

It  could  have  even  pleaded  with   the

Department not to blacklist the appellant or do it for a  lesser  period  in

case the Department still wanted to black list the appellant.

Therefore,  it

is not at all acceptable that non mentioning  of  proposed  blacklisting  in

the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to  the  appellant.

This

apart, the extreme nature of such a harsh  penalty  like  blacklisting  with

severe consequences,  would  itself  amount  to  causing  prejudice  to  the

appellant.

34)   For the aforesaid reasons, we  are  of  the  view  that  the  impugned

judgment  of  the  High  Court  does  not  decide  the  issue   in   correct

prospective.

The impugned order dated 11.9.2013 passed  by  the  respondents

blacklisting the appellant without giving the appellant notice  thereto,  is

contrary to the principles of natural justice as  it  was  not  specifically

proposed and, therefore, there was  no  show  cause  notice  given  to  this

effect before taking action of  blacklisting  against  the  appellant.

We,

therefore, set aside and quash  the  impugned  action  of  blacklisting  the

appellant.

The appeals are allowed to  this  extent.  However,  we  make  it

clear that it would be open to the respondents to take any  action  in  this

behalf after complying with the necessary procedural formalities  delineated

above.

35)   No costs.

2014 -Aug.part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41804