Natural justice in contract cancellation and blacklisting requires disclosed charges, notice, reply, and recorded findings before adverse action.

Administrative cancellation of a contract and blacklisting both require disclosure of the specific allegations and the reasons relied on, together with a fair opportunity to respond. A vague notice or an order that omits the actual charge, alleged irregularities, or recorded findings cannot sustain such adverse civil consequences. Blacklisting, in particular, must follow notice, reply, and proper inquiry before being imposed. On this basis, the document states that both impugned orders were set aside, while leaving the authority free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's contract was liable to be quashed for vagueness and absence of disclosed charges; (ii) Whether the order of blacklisting for three years was sustainable without prior notice of allegations, opportunity of reply, and recorded findings.

Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's contract was liable to be quashed for vagueness and absence of disclosed charges.

Analysis: The notice issued to the petitioner did not specify the purpose for which appearance was required, and the cancellation order did not disclose the actual charge, the alleged irregularities, or the basis on which grave misconduct was inferred. An adverse administrative action affecting contractual rights must disclose the material allegations and the reasons forming the basis of the decision.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of blacklisting for three years was sustainable without prior notice of allegations, opportunity of reply, and recorded findings.

Analysis: Blacklisting is a serious civil consequence and can be imposed only after the affected person is made aware of the allegations, given a meaningful opportunity to respond, and the authority records findings based on a proper inquiry. The impugned blacklisting order did not disclose the alleged irregularities or the material considered, and the deficiency could not be cured by an affidavit.

Conclusion: The blacklisting order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Both impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were left free to proceed afresh only after conducting a due and proper inquiry in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative order imposing cancellation of a contract or blacklisting must disclose the specific allegations and reasons, and it must be preceded by a fair opportunity to meet the charge; otherwise, it is invalid for breach of natural justice.

---