Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Termination and Blacklisting of Audit Firm Over Allegations of Bribery Based on Unverified Viral Video Quashed: Jharkhand High Court

22 October 2024 8:42 PM

By: sayum


Jharkhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in M/s. B. Gupta & Co. Chartered Accounts v. The State of Jharkhand & Others, quashing the blacklisting of the petitioner-firm for five years and imposing exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 on the respondents. The blacklisting arose from allegations of bribery by the audit team, based on a viral social media video. The court found that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that the investigation lacked due process and fairness.

Background of the Case: The petitioner, M/s B. Gupta & Co., a chartered accountant firm, had been awarded a contract by the Jharkhand State Mid-day Meal Authority to audit the Mid-day Meal Project for the financial years 2018-19 to 2020-21. The firm was tasked with auditing in the Godda district. During the audit process in February 2023, a viral video surfaced, allegedly showing members of the audit team accepting bribes from schoolteachers. This led to the termination of the firm’s contract and a five-year blacklisting by the Director of the Jharkhand State Mid-day Meal Authority.

The petitioner contended that the video was a misrepresentation of events and that no bribery had occurred. According to the petitioner, the money shown in the video was part of a personal transaction to buy food for the audit team. Despite a detailed representation made by the firm, the Director of the Mid-day Meal Authority terminated the contract and blacklisted the firm based on an incomplete and flawed inquiry.

Presumptions and Lack of Evidence:

The court observed that the blacklisting and termination of the petitioner’s contract were based on presumptions and unverified social media reports. The inquiry officer, appointed to investigate the bribery allegations, failed to produce any concrete evidence or identify the teachers allegedly involved in the bribery. No witnesses confirmed any payment to the audit team or implicated the firm in any wrongdoing. The viral video, which was central to the allegations, was deemed unreliable, as its authenticity was not corroborated by any independent witnesses.

The court highlighted that the inquiry report relied on hearsay and lacked factual verification, violating the principles of natural justice. It was noted that the enquiry officer admitted that he could not identify any teachers involved in the alleged bribery and that no material evidence supported the claims made in the viral video.

Violation of Natural Justice and Arbitrary Action:

The court further emphasized that the blacklisting process lacked fairness and due process. The principles of natural justice were violated, as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to contest the charges. The investigation was flawed and relied solely on a viral social media video, without any independent verification. As a result, the court held that the actions taken by the respondents were arbitrary, illegal, and without application of mind.

The bench, led by Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan, underscored that blacklisting has severe consequences and cannot be issued without a thorough and well-founded investigation. Blacklisting is not only a bar from securing future contracts but also carries a significant stigma. The court condemned the respondents’ reliance on unverified social media reports and news clippings to take such drastic action against the petitioner.

The court imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 on the respondents, payable to the petitioner-firm within eight weeks. This penalty was meant to address the arbitrary and unfounded actions of the Jharkhand State Mid-day Meal Authority, which had severely impacted the firm’s reputation and business. The court stressed that public authorities must exercise their powers judiciously and ensure that blacklisting orders are issued only after proper due diligence and verification of facts.

The Jharkhand High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the blacklisting and termination orders against M/s B. Gupta & Co.. The respondents were directed to pay ₹2,00,000 as exemplary costs to the petitioner-firm, reinforcing the importance of due process and fairness in administrative decisions.

Date of Decision: October 21, 2024

M/s. B. Gupta & Co. Chartered Accounts v. The State of Jharkhand & Others

Latest Legal News