9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit under CHALR, 2004. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit under CHALR, 2004. The appellants contested the enquiry report as illegal, stating that it was submitted without conducting a factual enquiry. They referred to a Tribunal order directing the inquiry to be concluded within three months, failing which the suspension order would be revoked. The appellants claimed they were not informed about the change in the Inquiry Officer, despite seeking renewal of the license in compliance with the Tribunal order. They received a notice appointing a new Inquiry Officer and fixed a preliminary hearing. However, the appellants argued before the Inquiry Officer to keep the proceedings in abeyance since the matter was before the Tribunal. The Inquiry report was submitted without proper conduct of the inquiry, including cross-examination, indicating undue haste. Consequently, the Commissioner was directed to instruct the Inquiry Officer to re-conduct the inquiry following principles of natural justice, allowing cross-examination, and submitting a considered report for the Commissioner's review. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing cooperation from the appellants. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the inquiry process leading to the revocation of the CHA license. The Tribunal found that the Inquiry Officer's report was hastily prepared without proper conduct of the inquiry, including the essential cross-examination. Therefore, the Commissioner was directed to ensure a fair and thorough inquiry following the principles of natural justice. The appellants were instructed to cooperate with the Inquiry Officer during the re-conducted inquiry.
|
