The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that administrative blacklisting of an employee, particularly when it carries civil consequences, cannot proceed without adherence to the principles of natural justice. Even where an FIR has been registered, the subsequent acquittal by a criminal court renders the original basis for blacklisting legally untenable, and demands a fresh, fair reconsideration by the authority.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tejeshwar Singh Rajput, was employed by the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), a state-owned entity under the Excise Department. His name was placed on a public blacklist on the official web-portal of the respondents (Annexure P-5), effectively barring him from future employment opportunities with the Excise Department and its allied agencies. The blacklisting was based solely on the registration of FIR No. 66/2023 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was registered in FIR No. 66/2023 on an allegation under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act
- The criminal trial concluded with a judgment of acquittal dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-2)
- Despite acquittal, the respondents did not remove his name from the blacklist
- The petitioner submitted a formal representation on 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) seeking removal
- The respondents rejected the representation via communication dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), citing lack of official intimation of acquittal
- The petitioner had made repeated oral requests prior to the written representation
- The blacklist entry was publicly accessible and caused reputational and livelihood harm
Procedural History
- 2023: FIR No. 66/2023 registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act
- 22.11.2024: Competent criminal court acquitted the petitioner of all charges
- 29.05.2025: Petitioner submitted formal representation seeking removal from blacklist
- 18.09.2025: Respondents rejected representation without assigning legally valid reasons
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 2158 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh
- 06.05.2026: Hearing concluded before Hon’ble Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that blacklisting without show-cause notice or hearing violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. Acquittal nullifies the basis of blacklisting. Relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar to assert that administrative action must be fair and non-arbitrary.
Respondents: Contended that they acted in good faith based on available records. No official intimation of acquittal was received through proper channels. The petitioner failed to exhaust alternative remedies.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Immediate removal of his name from the blacklist on the respondents’ web-portal
- Any other relief the Court deemed fit
The Legal Issue
Can an administrative authority retain an employee’s name on a public blacklist based solely on a pending FIR, after the employee has been acquitted by a criminal court, without affording a hearing or reconsidering the matter?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that blacklisting is a severe administrative sanction with civil consequences, akin to a stigma. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das held that such actions require compliance with principles of natural justice. The registration of an FIR does not equate to guilt, and its subsequent nullification by a judicial acquittal renders the basis for blacklisting legally unsustainable. The failure to act on the representation dated 29.05.2025, despite clear documentary proof of acquittal, amounted to arbitrary and mala fide conduct. The petitioner also cited WPC No. 6615 of 2025 (Annexure P-6), where this Court had directed removal of a similar blacklist entry after acquittal, establishing a precedent for parity.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel contended that the Corporation acted on the basis of official records available at the time of blacklisting. The acquittal judgment was not formally communicated to the department through authenticated documents or official channels. Administrative bodies cannot be expected to monitor court judgments independently. The petitioner had an alternative remedy under service rules to submit the acquittal order and seek review, which he had not fully exhausted. The action was not mala fide but merely negligent due to procedural lapse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that while administrative bodies are entitled to rely on official records, they are not absolved of the duty to act fairly when new, decisive information emerges. The acquittal dated 22.11.2024 was not merely a procedural development - it was a judicial determination that negated the very foundation of the blacklisting. The Court observed:
"The registration of an FIR is a preliminary step in criminal proceedings and does not constitute proof of guilt. Once a competent court acquits an individual, the basis for any adverse administrative action predicated on that FIR ceases to exist."
The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner failed to exhaust remedies, noting that the representation dated 29.05.2025 was a formal and sufficient attempt to bring the acquittal to the notice of the authority. The rejection of that representation without reasons or consideration was itself a violation of natural justice.
The Court further emphasized that the principle of audi alteram partem is not a technicality but a constitutional imperative. Even if the respondents acted in good faith, the failure to afford a hearing before imposing a stigma that affects livelihood and reputation renders the action legally infirm.
The Court declined to directly order removal, recognizing the need for the administrative authority to independently evaluate the matter in light of the acquittal. However, it made clear that the basis for the original action was extinguished and that any continued retention of the name on the blacklist without reconsideration would be unlawful.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with directions. The respondents No. 2 to 4 were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s representation dated 29.05.2025, taking into account the acquittal judgment dated 22.11.2024. The authority must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing a reasoned order. The entire exercise must be completed within 45 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Blacklisting Requires Active Reassessment After Acquittal
- Practitioners must now argue that any administrative blacklist based on criminal proceedings must be automatically reviewed upon acquittal
- The burden shifts to the authority to justify retention of the name, not the individual to prove innocence
- Mere non-receipt of documents is not a valid defense if the individual has formally submitted them
Due Process Is Non-Negotiable in Stigmatic Sanctions
- Blacklisting affecting employment eligibility is a deprivation of livelihood under Article 21
- Show-cause notices and hearings are mandatory, even if the initial basis appears credible
- Reliance on internal records without verification of judicial outcomes constitutes arbitrariness
Precedent for Parity in Administrative Decisions
- Courts will enforce parity where identical situations have been resolved differently
- The citation of WPC No. 6615 of 2025 establishes that this Court will not tolerate inconsistent treatment of similarly situated individuals
- Practitioners should cite such precedents to demand uniformity in administrative action
