Sandeep Kumar Sah, aged about 46 years, son of Sri Hargauri Prasad Sah, resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supply
Case Details
1 W.P. (C). No. 6545 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C ) No. 6545 of 2018 Sandeep Kumar Sah, aged about 46 years, son of Sri Hargauri Prasad Sah, resident of Mohalla- Rasikpur, P.O. , P.S & Dist.- Dumka .......... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supply and Public Distribution Department, having office at Project Building, P.O & P.S.- Dhurwa Town and Dist.- Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Dumka 3. The Block Development Officer, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Dumka 4. The District Supply Officer, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Dumka 5. The Block Supply Officer, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Dumka ........... Respondents For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S. P. Roy , Adv. Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur , Adv. Mr. Kabisha Goenka, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Order No. 25 of 2018 as contained in Memo No. 116 dated 20.01.2018, whereby, the petitioner has been blacklisted for indefinite period and the selection of the petitioner as Transport Agent for the year 2015/16 has been cancelled in view of the earlier Order passed vide Order No. 51 of 2 W.P. (C). No. 6545 of 2018 2015 as contained in Memo No. 295 dated 24.03.2015 but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner abandons the prayer to command the respondent to allow the petitioner to work as a Transportation Agent under Door Step Delivery for transporting food grains from godown of the State Food Corporation to Public Distribution Shop and confines his prayer only to quash the Order No. 25 of 2018 as contained in Memo No. 116 dated 20.01.2018. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Transportation Agent by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka for the financial year, 2012-13. The payments were made to the petitioner, on the basis of the voucher submitted by the petitioner and the same was extended; after the respondents were satisfied with the work of the petitioner and the petitioner was discharging his duties without any complain but suddenly, vide order no. 51 / 2015 as contained in Memo No. 295dated 24.03.2015, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Agent for loading, unloading and transportation of food grains from the block headquarters to the concerned panchayats and the petitioner was blacklisted for an indefinite period and a sum of Rs. 1,39,277/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner filed WP (C) No. 1758 of 2015 contending therein that no opportunity of being heard was given to him, before passing the said order and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, quashed the order no. 51 /2015 as contained in Memo No. 295 dated 24.03.2015 but gave liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, if they so desire, after giving an opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, the District Supply Officer, issued show cause notice to the 3 W.P. (C). No. 6545 of 2018 petitioner but vide order no. 25/2018, which was communicated vide Memo No. 116 dated 20.01.2018, again blacklisted the petitioner for an indefinite period after holding that the order no. 51 / 2015 as contained in Memo No. 295 dated 24.03.2015 was proper. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd vs. Chief General Manager Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, para 25 of which, reads as under:- an for disciplining effective method “25. Suffice it to say that “debarment” is recognised and often used deviant as suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the “debarment” is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.” frauds and submits that “debarment” is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor . It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents also lodged FIR against the petitioner vide Dumka (T) P.S. case no. 39 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 232 of 2018. It is lastly submitted that the sole prayer of the writ petitioner be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Order No. 25 of 2018 as contained in Memo No. 116 dated 20.01.2018 has rightly been passed, keeping in view of the mis-conduct of the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that this writ petition, being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this court has 4 W.P. (C). No. 6545 of 2018 no hesitation in holding that in view of the principle of law, settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd vs. Chief General Manager Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. (supra), this Court, is of the considered opinion that the order for blacklisting the petitioner permanently, is not sustainable in law, accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Order No. 25 of 2018 as contending Memo No. 116 dated 20.01.2018 is quashed and set aside. 8. This writ petition is allowed only to the extent that while the order blacklisting the petitioner, shall stand affirmed, the period for which, such order will remain operative, shall be determined afresh, in accordance with law, within six months, from the date of this judgment. 9. Parties to bear their own costs. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 19th March, 2024 Smita /AFR