DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed an order of suspension dated April 9, 2018 issued by the fourth respondent.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the order of suspension is without jurisdiction. He has referred to the Guidelines of Ministry of Defence for Penalties in Business Dealings with Entities applicable for both Capital and Revenue Procurement of Goods and Services, 2016. He has submitted that, the Defence Minister is the authority to consider and decide an issue of suspension and pass an order thereon. In the present case, a Major General having issued the impugned order of suspension, the same is without jurisdiction. A Major General has no jurisdiction to issue an order of suspension. He has submitted that, the order of suspension has not been passed without following the procedure laid down in the Guidelines of 2016.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that, the authorities had floated a request for proposal on April 30, 2016. The petitioner had participated in such request for proposal. The dealings and transactions of the petitioner in relation to such request for proposal had culminated in the impugned order of suspension. The request for proposal floated on April 30, 2016 was prior to the Guidelines relied upon by the petitioners. Such Guidelines were issued on November 21, 2016 and amended on December 30, 2016. Therefore, the Guidelines are not applicable in the instant case.;