ORDER : 1. Order dated January 17, 2022 passed by learned Single Judge has been impugned by filing the present intra-court appeal. Vide aforesaid order, two writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, bearing Writ-C No.28322 of 2021, were dismissed. 2. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated September 17, 2021 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Directorate General of Training, vide which the appellants-Institutes were de-affiliated and debarred for three years and no further admissions were to be allowed to them from the session 2021. The relevant portion of the order dated September 17, 2021 is reproduced below : “Committee approved for De-affiliation of these 40 ITIs and debarred them for 3 years. No further admissions to be allowed to these ITIs from session 2021.” 3. The aforesaid order was passed on account of the fact that the appellants had furnished forged bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/- per unit. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the condition for submission of bank guarantee was imposed by the State Government vide order dated September 25, 2020. Finding that certain bank guarantees were fake, the State Government recommended to the Central Government that the said Institutes be not allowed to make any admission for the session 2021-22. The imposition of higher penalty by the Central Government was totally uncalled for, as there was no violation of any of the conditions imposed by the Central Government. The penalty imposed was disproportionate to the guilt and the idea for furnishing bank guarantee was to compensate the students in case courses are closed midway. Such an eventuality has not yet arisen. The appellants are ready to furnish fresh bank guarantees. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in a matter pending before the Lucknow Bench of this Court bearing Writ-C No. 1948 of 2022, vide order dated April 5, 2022, the respondents therein have been restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners therein, in case they deposit Rs.50,000/- each per unit within 7 days with the authority concerned. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a case in which the appellants had furnished forged bank guarantees. Hence, the punishment imposed by the Central Government cannot be said to be disproportionate, seeing their conduct. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a case in which the appellants had furnished forged bank guarantees. Hence, the punishment imposed by the Central Government cannot be said to be disproportionate, seeing their conduct. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any case is made out for interference in the present appeal. 8. Vide order dated September 25, 2020, the State Government had imposed a condition that the Institutes are required to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/-per unit. There was no challenge to the aforesaid condition imposed by the State Government which was applicable after the issuance thereof. Rather, in compliance thereof, the appellants furnished bank guarantees, which were found to be forged. Finding the bank guarantees furnished by 40 Institutes to be forged, the State Government recommended to the Central Government that they should not be allowed to make any admission for the session 2021-22. However, the Central Government, finding that it was a case of submission of forged bank guarantee, passed the order dated September 17, 2021, impugned in the writ petition giving rise to the present intra-court appeal. 9. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, is merely to be noticed and rejected, for the reason that it was a case of submission of fake bank guarantee and fraud committed on the State, which vitiates everything. The argument that the Central Government had no authority to impose punishment for submission of fake bank guarantee as the condition for submission of bank guarantee was imposed by the State Government is also to be noticed and rejected, for the reason that in case of submission of fake document/bank guarantee, the Institutes concerned have to face the consequences as these are the Institutes which were meant to impart education to students. Still, we find that 40 Institutes have been inflicted with the punishment and only 13 Institutes joined the writ petition. However, in appeal, only 8 Institutes have come in. It was stated by learned counsel for the respondents that there is another special appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 87 of 2022 in which only one Institute is there. Still, we find that 40 Institutes have been inflicted with the punishment and only 13 Institutes joined the writ petition. However, in appeal, only 8 Institutes have come in. It was stated by learned counsel for the respondents that there is another special appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 87 of 2022 in which only one Institute is there. That means, all the Institutes have not even challenged the order, realising that they had committed fraud by submitting forged bank guarantees, hence were liable to be punished for the same. 10. We do not find any reason to take a view different than the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.