Supreme Court of India Umc Technologies Private Ltd. vs Food Corporation Of India on 16 November, 2020 Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 166, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 884 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3687 OF 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14228 of 2019) UMC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2019. By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and has upheld the validity of the Signature Not Verified order dated 09.01.2019 passed by respondent no.1, namely Food Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2020.11.16 19:04:05 IST Reason: Corporation of India (for short ‘the Corporation’) through its 1 Deputy General Manager (Personnel), who is respondent no. 2 herein, to terminate a contract of service with the appellant and to blacklist the appellant from participating in any future tenders of the Corporation for a period of 5 years. 3. The Corporation had issued a Bid Document on 25.11.2016 inviting bids for appointment of a recruitment agency to conduct the process of recruitment for hiring watchmen for the Corporation’s office. The appellant submitted its bid on 21.12.2016 and was eventually declared as the successful bidder vide the Corporation’s letter dated 28.03.2017. After completion of the formalities, the appellant was appointed for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 14.02.2017 for undertaking the tendered work of conducting recruitment of watchmen for the Corporation. 4. As part of its work, on 01.04.2018, the appellant conducted a written exam for eligible aspirants for the post of watchman with the Corporation at various centres in Madhya Pradesh. On the same day, a Special Task Force of Bhopal Police arrested 50 persons in Gwalior, who were in possession of certain handwritten documents which prima facie appeared to be the question papers related to the examination conducted by the appellant. The police 2 filed a charge sheet on 03.08.2018 against certain persons including an employee of the appellant. Upon receipt of the above information, the Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 to the appellant informing the appellant about the said arrest and seizure of documents which appeared to contain question papers related to the examination conducted by the appellant. This notice alleged that the appellant had breached various clauses of the Bid Document dated 25.11.2016 on the ground that it was the sole responsibility of the appellant to prepare and distribute the question papers as well as conduct the examination in a highly confidential manner. Several clauses of the Bid Document were listed in the said notice dated 10.04.2018 and the Corporation alleged that the appellant had violated the same due to its abject failure and clear negligence in ensuring smooth conduct of the examination. The said notice directed the appellant to furnish an explanation within 15 days, failing which an appropriate exparte decision would be taken by the Corporation. 5. The appellant replied to the aforesaid notice vide its letter dated 12.04.2018 denying any negligence or leak of question 3 papers from its end. In its communication, the appellant furnished several factual justifications in support of its position and also requested the Corporation to make the documents seized by the police available to the appellant for forensic analysis. These documents were provided to the appellant vide the Corporation’s letter dated 18.10.2018. The Corporation addressed another letter dated 22.10.2018 calling upon the appellant to submit its final reply/explanation. Thereafter, on 27.10.2018, the appellant submitted an Observation ReportcumReply/Explanation which compared the seized documents with the original question papers and contended that there were many dissimilarities between the two and thus there had been no leakage or dissemination of the original question papers. 6. By its aforesaid order dated 09.01.2