ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Heard Shri Pankaj S. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Second respondent invited tenders from the service providers for carrying on the activities at Jan Seva Centers in District Surat by advertisement dated 06.03.2021. In all 7 bidders submitted their bid, 5 bidders were qualified in the pre-bid process held on 25.03.2021 and petitioner was declared as L-1. By work order dated 23.04.2021, petitioner's firm was issued with the order to carry out the activities at Jan Seva Centers in District Surat for the period from 01.05.2021 to 30.04.2023. One of the employees of the petitioner by name Shri Makwana Vishwa Sureshbhai then working at Udhana Jan Seva Center submitted an application on 08.03.2022 to the second respondent with a grievance that he is not being paid salary in terms of the contract and it was also alleged that petitioner had granted sub agency to one Mr. Ankit Zanzadiya. Hence, an order came to be passed on 14.03.2022 terminating the petitioner's agency and forfeiting the deposit made by the petitioner and blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 7355 of 2022 which was disposed of by order dated 04.05.2022 by arriving at a conclusion that the said order was in violation of principles of natural justice and directed that impugned order dated 14.03.2022 be treated as a show cause notice and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply to the same within 10 days from the date of order and this Court also directed the respondent authority to adjudicate the same by affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the said order dated 04.05.2022, notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner who appeared before the authority and after hearing the petitioner, impugned order dated 18.08.2022 came to be passed whereunder the contract / work order issued to the petitioner came to be terminated and petitioner came to be blacklisted for a period of three years. Hence, this Special Civil Application. 5. It is the contention of Shri Pankaj S. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that impugned order has been passed without considering the entire material on record. Hence, this Special Civil Application. 5. It is the contention of Shri Pankaj S. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that impugned order has been passed without considering the entire material on record. He would submit though complainant had appeared before the committee and reported that she has already received the salary and she had no grievance against petitioner yet ignoring the said admission, impugned order has been passed. Hence, he prays for setting aside the same. 6. Per contra, Shri K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State by relying upon the original records now tendered before the Court would contend that on account of non payment of salary on time to two of its employees though agreed under the work order that such salary would be paid to its employees periodically and on time yet same was not paid. Hence, the order of blacklisting has been passed. He would also fairly submit that though under the impugned order it has been held that said termination and blacklisting had occurred on account of non payment of provident fund dues also but there is no proof with regard to the same. Hence, he prays for suitable orders being passed in this Special Civil Application. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, it would emerge therefrom that principles of order audi alteram partem had been given a complete gobye at the first instance namely when the order dated 14.03.2022 came to be passed. It is for this precise reason, we had set aside the same and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, namely, the Collector and District Magistrate, Surat to re-do the matter. 8. In the re-hearing which took place, the adjudicating authority also seems to have issued notice to the complainant Mr. Vishwa Makwana who appeared before the inquiring authority and in categorical terms stated that salary had been paid to her. This admission by the complainant has also been noted under the impugned order, which is to the following effect:- "4.1 Makwana Vishwa Sureshbhai has made written submissions on 30.05.2022 and stated that we have received our salary and in this regard, we have not to say anything further. This admission by the complainant has also been noted under the impugned order, which is to the following effect:- "4.1 Makwana Vishwa Sureshbhai has made written submissions on 30.05.2022 and stated that we have received our salary and in this regard, we have not to say anything further. Affidavit about receiving the salary has been given to Virani Enterprise and now in this regard, we don't want to say anything further and such kind of written submissions are made." 9. However, the fact remains that in respect of some employees payment of salary for the Month of May 2021 and June 2021 has been made in the months of July, August and October, 2021. In other words, there has been some delay while making payment of salary to its employees by the petitioner. However, that by itself would not be a ground on which the contract could have been terminated and serious penalty of blacklisting the petitioner for three years could have been resorted to. Though there was an allegation with regard to petitioner having sub-contracted, said aspect has not received the attention of the Collector or to put it differently, there is no discussion and finding recorded with regard to the allegation of petitioner having given sub contract. Thus the allegation has remained as an allegation without same having been proved. However, the fact remains that there has been intermittently delay in payment of salary or wages to his employees by the petitioner and that for one or two months. In other words, salary was not been paid on 10th of each month, though agreed upon by petitioner under the contract. It has also been recorded on verification of the records produced by the petitioner to the following effect under the impugned order:- "5.5 While making verification of the produced record as well as zerox copies of the bank pass books produced by the operators of the Jan Seva Kendres, it appears that the payment of salary for the month of May 2021 and June 2021 has been made in the month of July, August and October 2021 means it has been made during separate months. In the case of Vishwa Makwana, the payment of salary for the month of May-June 2021 has been made on 08.08.2021 as well as the salary for the month of August September 2021 has been made on 21.10.2021 as well as in the case of Dhruv Vasoya, the salary for the month of May June 2021 has been made on 21.10.2021 and salary for the month of July, August and September 2021 has been made on 12.10.2021. While making verification of the bank passbooks of operators of other office, irregularities are found in the payment of salary. Thus, it appears that Virani Enterprise has not made payment of salary to the Operators timely." 10. In the light of the above finding recorded, we are of the considered view that levy of penalty of blacklisting the petitioner was too harsh and as such it cannot be sustained, though the order of termination on this ground was justifiable. 11. For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following ORDER (i) Special Civil Application is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure-A) insofar as it relates to blacklisting the petitioner is concerned, stands set aside and the order terminating the contract of the petitioner stands affirmed. (iii) No order as to cost.