Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana 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