“6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AGA, this Court finds that the respondents, though claim that show-cause notices dated 21.12.2015 and 21.01.2016 have been sent to the petitioner, admittedly there is no acknowledgement produced before this Court to show that the petitioner has received the registered posts. Moreover, the reason stated in the impugned order that the petitioner had furnished fake bank guarantee in the year 2013 and therefore that forms the basis for blacklisting the petitioner, seems to be very remote. The respondents have admitted that they have settled the bills tendered by the petitioner for the works undertaken during the year 2013. Consequent to the completion of the work and settling of the accounts, the petitioner was permitted to take back the bank guarantee. There was no reason furnished or even stated by the third respondentExecutive Engineer before permitting the petitioner to take back the bank guarantee pointing out that the bank guarantee furnished was fake. It is also difficult to understand how the third respondent has come to a conclusion that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was fake having permitted the petitioner to take back the bank guarantee after completion of the works and having settled the bills in favour of the petitioner. This itself shows that no opportunity was given
