JUDGMENT : (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ to quash the debarment order dated 23.09.2022, passed by respondent no.2, pursuant to criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner-company by Special Task Force (for short “STF”), pertaining to alleged involvement of the petitioner-company in leakage of question papers of the State Selection Commission Examination held on 04.12.2022/ 05.12.2022 and Secretariat Guard Examination held on 26.09.2021. 2. Petitioner has placed on record the Certificate of Incorporation dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure-1) to show that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 with Certificate of Incorporation dated 30.09.2010. The petitioner has its registered office at Jankipuram, Lucknow, U.P. The main objects of the petitioner is to provide manpower, placement, recruiting, selecting, intervening, training and employing workers and executives for various Government, Public & Private Sector Undertakings. 3. Pursuant to the MoU (translated copy, Annexure-2), petitioner was awarded the contract by respondent no.2 to execute the works of “Pre and Post Examination Works relating to the Uttarakhand Subordinate Services Selection Commission Examination”. As per Clause 6 of the MoU, the printing work for the Commission was to be done in the present and in front of the Commission’s representative/ officers only after the sample and draft of the OMR sheet to be printed is approved. 4. Criminal proceedings were instituted qua in FIR No.0289 dated 22.07.2022 against unknown persons (initially lodged u/s 420 IPC at P.S. Raipur, Dehradun) by respondent no.2; and in the Final Report, namely Charge-sheet No.1 dated 19.09.2022, 18 persons have been charged u/s 420, 467, 471, 34 & 120-B IPC and Section 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 9/ 10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998. Thereafter, another FIR No.0351 dated 25.08.2022, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and Section 9/10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, was lodged. Subsequently, supplementary charge-sheet, namely charge-sheet No.2, dated 04.10.2022 and charge-sheet no.3, dated 19.10.2022, were filed. 5. As per the allegations set out in the First Information Reports, erring employees were immediately terminated by the petitioner-company. Copy of the termination letters of Jaijeet Das, Abhishek Verma, Vipin Bihari and Pradeep Kumar are Annexure-4 (collectively) to this writ petition. 6. Subsequently, supplementary charge-sheet, namely charge-sheet No.2, dated 04.10.2022 and charge-sheet no.3, dated 19.10.2022, were filed. 5. As per the allegations set out in the First Information Reports, erring employees were immediately terminated by the petitioner-company. Copy of the termination letters of Jaijeet Das, Abhishek Verma, Vipin Bihari and Pradeep Kumar are Annexure-4 (collectively) to this writ petition. 6. Petitioner was issued a show-cause notice by respondent no.2 on 01.09.2022 (Annexure-5) to show-cause as to why the petitioner-company should not be blacklisted for the irregularities concerning the question paper leak by two of its employees, namely, Jaijeet Das and Abhishek Verma. 7. Another FIR No.0362, dated 04.09.2022 was lodged under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, wherein it has been alleged that leakage of examination papers has been clandestinely conducted with the active connivance of Shri Rajesh Kumar Chauhan (Director of petitioner-company), with other employees of petitioner-company and with the active participation of the State Government employees and outside agencies, by making a chain amongst themselves, which would attract the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Copy of the FIR is Annexure-6. 8. Petitioner-company gave its reply dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure-7) to the show-cause notice (Annexure-5) taking the plea that the Directors/ Management had no knowledge of the alleged leak, nor did they have any involvement in the printing/ publication and issuance of the question papers and it was the officers of respondent no.2-Commission, in whose control and supervision, the question papers were published/ printed and issued, and no officer or Director of the company had any involvement, interference or presence in the same. However, vide impugned order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure-8), the petitioner-company was debarred from all works related to respondent no.2-Commission on the grounds that five employees of the petitioner-company, including the Director, Shri Rajesh Kumar Chauhan and his brother Shri Sanjeev Kumar, have been arrayed as accused in FIR No.289 and three employees including the Director-Shri Rajesh Kumar, have been arrayed as accused in FIR No.351. The paper was printed in the Printing Press of the petitioner-company, the petitioner could not take a stand that they had not involvement in the alleged offence. The paper was printed in the Printing Press of the petitioner-company, the petitioner could not take a stand that they had not involvement in the alleged offence. While issuing the above said impugned order, respondent no.2 did not consider the fact that their own officers/ State Government officials were at the helm of the printing affairs and it was these officers who had deep, pervasive and absolute control, supervision and authority over the printing of such question papers. Petitioner has placed on record the appreciation letters issued by various Government Agencies, who hired the petitioner-company, as Annexure-9 collectively. 9. On notice in this writ petition, one counter-affidavit dated 02.02.2023, has been filed by the Director (Training), Training & Employment, Uttarakhand, taking the plea that the answering respondent is neither a proper party nor a necessary party for the adjudication of this present writ petition. Another counter-affidavit dated 07.06.2023 has been filed by the Inspector, Special Task Force, Dehradun. In Paragraph No.5 of the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that after registration of the FIR No.289/2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B, 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, sufficient evidence were found against the named persons, and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the lower Court. Another case, i.e. Case Crime No.362 of 2022, was registered under Sections 2/3 of the Gangster Act, at P.S. Raipur, Dehradun. As per the evidence collected, one Abhishek Verma, an employee of the said company, while printing the question paper in the printing press of RMS Technosolutions Pvt. Ltd. before the examination, took photos of the question paper from his mobile and sent a copy of the question paper through Telegram to other co-accused/ employee of the company, namely, Jaijeet Das. Thereafter, the question paper was leaked before the exam under criminal conspiracy at various levels and in lieu of which property worth crores of rupees has been earned by earning illegal money from the candidates, about 98,69,200/-cash and many blank cheques were from the accused and the question paper leaked by them in the said UKSSSC examination were found from the possession of the accused, handwritten and electronic evidence of candidates were also collected from mobile phones, laptops etc. and original educational documents of many candidates have also been recovered from the possession of the accused from various levels. A copy of the leaked paper was also provided to the accused Kendrapal by Rajesh Kumar Chauhan. Sufficient evidence was found against the accused Rajesh Kumar Chauhan and charge-sheet has been submitted before the learned Court below. 10. With respect to the investigation in Case Crime No.351 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 4/10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, the Investigating Officer in presence of the accused Pradeep Pal and the CCTV cameras installed in the printing hall of Uttarakhand Subordinate Selection Service Commission, it would found that during the printing of the written question paper of the Secretariat Security Cadre Recruitment Examination on 21.09.2021 by the employee/ accused Pradeep Pal of the said RMS company who was present in the printing hall, is trying to do some work at about 12:39:40 in the laptop by placing white paper on the keyboard of the laptop for about 02 minutes till 12:41:37. In this regard, on inquiry to the accused, it was told by the accused that he had copied the written question paper of the Secretariat Security Cadre Examination by putting a pen drive in the laptop and on the night of 21.09.2021, the accused Jaijeet Das was given the pen drive to the accused Rajesh Kumar Chauhan in the Palm city flat of the company, before handing over the said pen drive to accused Jaijeet Das by the accused Pradeep Pal, he had written the copied question paper in some pages in his handwriting by putting a pen drive in the old laptop of the company, which was recovered from the flat in Palm City at his behest. Accused Jaijeet Das gave the said pen drive to accused Rajesh Kumar Chauhan when he copied the question paper of the Secretariat Security Cadre from the laptop of Commission to another pen drive, which was recovered from his house in a broken condition at his behest. The case of was registered against the accused Rajesh and other 24 gang members in Case Crime No.362/22, under Sections 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Raipur, Dehradun, and the investigation is in progress. The case of was registered against the accused Rajesh and other 24 gang members in Case Crime No.362/22, under Sections 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Raipur, Dehradun, and the investigation is in progress. During the investigation of many cases, it has come to light that total five persons of the petitioner-company, namely, Jaijeet Das, Abhishek Verma, Vipin Bihari, Pradeep Pal, including the owner of the RMS Company, namely, Rajesh Kumar Chauhan, at various levels before examinations are involved in scam of paper leak. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulja Industries vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731 , the Supreme Court held that permanent blacklisting of the Contractor is against the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. The quantum of the period of debarment should be balanced by the offence of the delinquent contractor, and no permanent debarment/ blacklisting shall be ordered by the ordered by the Authority in any circumstances. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company has referred to another judgment of High Court of Calcutta in the case of Auroma Coke Limited & another vs. Coal India Limited & others, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2110, wherein the Calcutta High Court held that if the period of trial had not come to an end, and in that case, as per the clause, if a person was found to be guilty/ convicted, banning from participation will continue for a period of 5 years effective from date of commencement of last suspension/ date of conviction, whichever is earlier. Since the trial even after eleven years, the trial was continuing and there was no delay on the part of the petitioner, and the period had extended the maximum period of five years of ban, the writ petition was allowed and ban imposed against the petitioner was set-aside. 13. The facts of the above case are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case only charge-sheet had been filed, and there was no mention of maximum period of ban in the contract. 14. Another judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner is Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, (2020) 18 SCC 550 . 14. Another judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner is Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, (2020) 18 SCC 550 . In that case also, the blacklisting order was passed without hearing the appellants, and on account of certain actions which were taken by the erstwhile Director who had left the company long back. Instead of remanding the matter back, the Supreme Court proceeded to decide to matter, and quashed the adverse order. Pursuant to the contract, the appellants were made the supplies of medicines to various hospitals. As inquiry was pending against the appellants for serious offences, the blacklisting order was passed since a criminal case was registered against the erstwhile Director, who did not have any connection with the appellant from 22.02.2012. Another fact, which the Supreme Court took note of was that as per the order dated 21.08.2015, no show-cause notice had been issued, and no opportunity of hearing had been given to the appellants, and the banning order was for indefinite duration. The debarring order was made for a period of four years, and period of four years and three months had gone by the time when the matter was heard, and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, debarring a person permanently from entering into the contract with the U.P. Government, the impugned order was set-aside. 15. In the present case, as the show-cause notice was given (Annexure-5), to which, reply has been furnished by the petitioner (Annexure-7), and debarment order was passed by respondent no.2 on 23.09.2022 (Annexure-8), the only question for consideration in the present writ petition is, whether even if a show-cause notice has been given, and reply to the same has been furnished, can the petitioner-company be debarred permanently. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the General Financial Rules, 2017, issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India. Rule 151 relates to debarment from bidding, and the same reads as follows:- “Rule 151 Debarment from bidding. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the General Financial Rules, 2017, issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India. Rule 151 relates to debarment from bidding, and the same reads as follows:- “Rule 151 Debarment from bidding. (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. (ii) A bidder debarred under sub-section (i) or any successor of the bidder shall not be eligible to participate in a procurement process of any procuring entity for a period not exceeding three years commencing from the date of debarment. Department of Commerce (DGS & D) will maintain such list which will also be displayed on the website of DGS & D as well as Central Public Procurement Portal. (iii) A procuring entity may debar a bidder or any of its successors, from participating in any procurement process undertaken by it, for a period not exceeding two years, if it determines that the bidder has breached the code of integrity. The Ministry/ Department will maintain such list which will also be displayed on their website. (iv) The bidder shall not be debarred unless such bidder has been given a reasonable opportunity to represent against such debarment.” 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in the case of Par Veen Kumar @Praveen Kumar Kataria vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 7405, decided on 30.01.2019, whereby the blacklisting order dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure P-10), and the order dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure P-11), whereby the petitioner had been delisted from approved list of contractors in perpetuity, was set-aside, and reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2014) 9 SCC 105 , and; Kulja Industries Ltd. vs. Chief General Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731 . 18. In the facts of the present case, show-cause notice was given before passing the impugned order. BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731 . 18. In the facts of the present case, show-cause notice was given before passing the impugned order. However, the only question for consideration in the present writ petitioner is, can the petitioner be debarred permanently. 19. In the facts of the present case, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the charge-sheet filed against the Director, and other four co-accused/ employees of the petitioner-company, and there is no conviction or conclusion of the investigation, as per the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos.3 and 4. In this backdrop, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in perpetuity, the petitioner-company cannot be blacklisted. The role of the Director will be examined during the course of trial, and other things which are required to be examined during trial whether the officers/ officials of the Commission, as per the contract were personally involved in the leakage of papers, and what was the role of the officers/ officials of the Commission, who were present during the time of printing the question papers, as per the condition of the contract, and the presence of the representatives of the Commission was not procedural, but was a substantive as per Clause 6 of the MoU entered into between the petitioner-company and respondent no.2. 20. In any case, as per Rule 151 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, the maximum period prescribed is not exceeding three years from the date of debarment, and a bidder can only be debarred if he has been convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; or any other provision of Indian Penal Code. 21. In the facts of the present case, there is no conviction as such. Only charge-sheet has been submitted, and the maximum period, as per Rule 151(ii), three years and under Rule 151(iii) is for two years. 22. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 23.09.2022, and till February, 2024, one year and five months have already gone by, and there is no conviction against any of the employees of the petitioner-company, keeping in view the above General Financial Rules, 2017, as reproduced above, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 is set-aside. 23. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.