As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged punitive charges and debarment imposed by railway authorities. A vigilance check during the contract period found the Petitioner allegedly prepared two manifests for ... a single loading point with variations, leading to contract termination, forfeiture of deposits, and a five-year debarment. After an initial appeal rejection, a Writ Petition directed a revisit, but the appellate authority again upheld the punitive measures. The Petitioner argued these were logistical necessities, within permissible limits, and not fraudulent, highlighting that no actual loss or mens rea was proven by the Respondents. The question arose whether preparing two manifests for different terminals with weight differences constituted a false declaration justifying disproportionate punitive measures like debarment, especially without establishing fraudulent intent or financial loss. Finally, the High Court found the Respondents' actions disproportionate and legally infirm, stating that a transparent logistical split should not be assumed as a false declaration without proven malafide intent or actual loss. The Court quashed the cancellation of registration and contract termination, setting aside the debarment and directing a refund of deposits.