Inordinate delay and conduct predating directorship defeated debarment over a deemed public issue-related default.

A debarment order could not be sustained where the appellant was shown to have become a director only after the deemed public issue, and the alleged default predated his tenure. The show-cause notice was issued in 2024, about 12 years after the relevant event, and the delay in initiating proceedings was treated as inordinate. On these facts, the appellant's connection with the alleged default was not established for the relevant period, so the debarment was quashed and the impugned order was set aside insofar as it applied to him.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned debarment order could be sustained when the appellant was shown to have been a director only after the deemed public issue and the show-cause notice was issued after a long delay.

Analysis: The appellant's appointment as director was shown to be on 29 January 2015 and his resignation on 13 April 2016. The deemed public issue had occurred in 2012-13, before his tenure as director. The notice was issued only in 2024, resulting in a delay of about 12 years from the relevant event. On these facts, the delay in initiating proceedings was held to be inordinate and the appellant's connection with the default alleged in relation to the deemed public issue was not established for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The debarment order could not be sustained against the appellant and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the impugned order was set aside insofar as it concerned the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of debarment based on conduct predating the appellant's tenure, coupled with an inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating proceedings, cannot be sustained.

---