JUDGMENT : MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. The petitioner seeks setting aside of an order dated 12.5.2022 passed by a Committee consisting of three Officials of the respondent Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW) which was confirmed by the General Manager of CLW on 21.5.2022. The impugned order recommended delisting of the petitioner for a period of 1 year from the date of delisting and made the decision subject to review based on change in circumstances. The impugned decision was communicated by a letter dated 28.5.2022; a hearing was given to the petitioner and held on 6.5.2022. 2. The petitioner assails the impugned decision to delist the petitioner on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the petitioner was not given any prior intimation of the intention to delist in the form of a show-cause notice or otherwise. Counsel submits that the General Manager, CLW, being the Appellate Authority, simply agreed with the recommendation of the Committee without indicating reasons for the same. Counsel submits that the petitioner was also not given any opportunity to explain its position before the Appellate Authority. Counsel submits that since delisting involves severe consequences, the impugned order being approved by the Appellate Authority and that too without a hearing to the petitioner is void. Counsel further submits that the reason given for delisting is arbitrary since the only ground indicated in the impugned order is a pending FIR. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent CLW and its officers submits that the petitioner was given a hearing before the Committee of CLW which would appear from the letter issued by the Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (CEE) on 28.5.2022. The letter records that the authorised representatives of the petitioner were heard on 6.5.2022 and the written submissions of the petitioner were also taken into account. Counsel relies on the Procedure for Vendor Development of the Indian Railways, CLW and on Clause 6.4.3 thereunder which provides that CLW may be advised to delist a vendor without giving notice. Counsel submits that the petitioner along with a few of the officers of CLW was found guilty of malpractice and that CBI proceedings are pending against those officers. 4. Counsel submits that the petitioner along with a few of the officers of CLW was found guilty of malpractice and that CBI proceedings are pending against those officers. 4. The undisputed facts in the present case which would appear from the material disclosed to the Court is that the petitioner was delisted on the basis of a decision taken by the (three) Members of a Hearing Committee on 12.5.2022. A hearing was given to the petitioner following a direction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 27.4.2022. The Committee heard the authorised representatives of the petitioner on 6.5.2022. The Committee dealt with the factual matters in detail and recommended that the petitioner be delisted “on account of malpractice/unethical practice...” and also for the reason that “... the case is sub judice...” The recommendation to delist the petitioner was for a period of 1 year from the date of delisting. The decision to delist was also made subject to review based on a change in circumstances. 5. The last page of the impugned decision dated 12.5.2022 taken by the three-Member Hearing Committee bears a handwritten endorsement of the Appellate Authority being the General Manager of CLW in the following words : “I agree with the recommendation of the Committee.” 6. The above writing is also under challenge and is dated 21.5.2022. 7. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner is premised on violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the Hearing Committee reflects that the petitioner was not given a hearing before the recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the General Manager / Appellate authority of CLW. The endorsement of the General Manager is solitary sentence without disclosing the basis for accepting the recommendation of delisting the petitioner. 8. The principles of natural justice include a right to be heard and defend oneself as also to know the basis of an order affecting the rights of a person. Admittedly, the General Manager of CLW did not afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before accepting the recommendation of the Committee. The acceptance is also singularly devoid of any indication as to the basis of the acceptance/confirmation of delisting. 9. Admittedly, the General Manager of CLW did not afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before accepting the recommendation of the Committee. The acceptance is also singularly devoid of any indication as to the basis of the acceptance/confirmation of delisting. 9. The Procedure for Vendor Development for Purchased Products used in Electric Locomotives of the Indian Railways, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works lays down the procedure which a vendor (the petitioner in this case) and the CLW are to follow. The Condition of Delisting is provided under Clause 6.4 which provides for delisting of a vendor which has been approved by CLW only on the conditions enumerated under 6.4.2. One of the conditions whereupon delisting may be initiated against the vendor is where the vendor has adopted any malpractice or unethical practice. Clause 6.4.3 further provides that where the firms are not in a position to overcome the “shortcomings” in a reasonable given time, CLW may be advised to delist the firm. 10. Although counsel appearing for CLW relies on the second part of Clause 6.4.3 to avoid the requirement of minimum one month’s notice, it is evident that Clause 6.4.3, or any part thereof, does not come to the assistance of the respondents CLW. This is by reason of the fact that the impugned delisting was not done for any technical reasons but on the ground of malpractice / unethical practice which would appear from the impugned order passed by the Hearing Committee. Although the procedure does not specifically provide for notice to a vendor before an order of delisting, it is well-settled that any decision of debarment / blacklisting can only be taken upon compliance of the principles of natural justice. 11. In the present case, clause 7.8 of the Procedure for Vendor Development provides for Appeal in the case of delisting of a vendor by CLW. The vendor must appeal against the delisting within 30 days from the issue of the letter before the General Manager (GM) who shall then decide or dispose of the appeal or refer the case to the Committee consisting of 3 members. The Committee will thereafter give their recommendation which will be put up to the GM for disposal of the appeal. The 3-member Committee in the facts of this case decided the matter pursuant to the direction of Punjab and Haryana High Court and forwarded their recommendation to the GM. The Committee will thereafter give their recommendation which will be put up to the GM for disposal of the appeal. The 3-member Committee in the facts of this case decided the matter pursuant to the direction of Punjab and Haryana High Court and forwarded their recommendation to the GM. Hence, clause 7.8 of the Procedure under which the vendor (petitioner) can challenge the impugned order of delisting is yet to be exhausted. 12. The order of blacklisting can also be challenged for being contrary to an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 2.11.2021 issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The OM sets down the “Guidelines on Debarment of firms from Bidding” and refers to Rule 151 of the General Financial Rules (GFRs), 2017 where under clause (i) a bidder shall be debarred if he has been convicted of an offence (a) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or (b) the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force, for causing any loss of life or property or causing a threat to public health as part of execution of a public procurement contract. Clause (i)(a) is relevant for the present case and significantly requires “conviction” for an offence before debarment. More significantly, clause (iv) under Rule 151 provides that the bidder shall not be debarred unless such bidder has been given a reasonable opportunity to represent against such debarment. 13. If the OM is applied to the facts narrated by the Committee and the impugned decision taken on 12.5.2022, it would appear that the delisting was only on the ground of the case being sub-judice. The impugned order does not give any particulars of the case but counsel have informed the Court that the pending matter relates to an FIR dated 3.2.2021 lodged by the CBI against two of the Directors of the petitioner. The 3-Member Committee however proceeded to delist the petitioner on the basis of the pending matter in direct contradiction to Rule 151 of the GFRs, 2017 as contained in the OM of 2.11.2021. 14. This view is reinforced by the decisions placed on behalf of the petitioner. In Chand vs. Special Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Rural Dev. The 3-Member Committee however proceeded to delist the petitioner on the basis of the pending matter in direct contradiction to Rule 151 of the GFRs, 2017 as contained in the OM of 2.11.2021. 14. This view is reinforced by the decisions placed on behalf of the petitioner. In Chand vs. Special Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Rural Dev. and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh, 2004 SCC Online P&H 824 a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere registration of an FIR does not amount to proof of guilt of the petitioner and further that registration of a false FIR is not a phenomenon unknown in the country. In an earlier decision in Nanhku Singh and Another vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 590 , the Supreme Court stressed on the importance of a witness being given the opportunity to explain the statements made in the FIR. 15. Moreover, the Guidelines binding the parties to the contract is inexplicably silent on the procedure to be followed in a case of delisting. Clause 6.4.3 is particularly vague and self-contradictory. The first part requires a minimum one month’s notice while the second part dilutes that position without any clarity as to the circumstances warranting such dilution. The ambiguity of the relevant clauses taken together with the absence of an opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner before the recommendation was approved by the GM as also the opaque endorsement of the GM strikes at the fundamentals of fair play in action. 16. In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551 , the Supreme Court elevated the right to self-defence as one of the first principles of civilised jurisprudence. The Supreme Court laid emphasis on the requirement of a notice clearly specifying the particular grounds on which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the affected party to answer the case against him. Medipol Pharmaceutical India Private Limited vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, (2021) 11 SCC 339 relied on Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70 to hold that the effect of blacklisting is to prevent the person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the government which requires that the authority concerned must have an objective satisfaction for passing such an order. The importance of giving reasons on the basis of objective factors was reinforced by the Supreme Court in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, (2010) 3 SCC 732 . The Supreme Court held that the recording of reasons is one of the facets of natural justice and ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. 17. In other words, the consistent view of the Court is that the principle of fair play warrants that the person at the receiving end of a decision and adversely affected by it must be given a chance to defend himself/herself before the decision is given effect to. 18. The facts before the Court show, beyond doubt, that CLW violated all principles of equitable dealings. The lack of accountability strengthens the hand of this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 12.5.2022 and the approval of the GM dated 21.5.2022. The petitioner shall be at liberty to exhaust the provision of appeal under clause 7.8 of the Procedure for Vendor Development within 3 weeks from the date of this judgment. WPA 26052 of 2022 is disposed of in terms of the above. 19. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon fulfillment of requisite formalities.