CHA licence revocation cannot stand when the Settlement Commission has exonerated the alleged participant in misdeclaration.

A CHA licence revocation could not be sustained where the Settlement Commission had already exonerated the employee said to be involved in the misdeclaration and found no conscious knowledge of that misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner could not proceed on a contrary assumption that the employee had admitted participation once the statutory finding was available. In these circumstances, disciplinary action against the CHA lacked support and the revocation proceedings ought to have been dropped. The revocation order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the CHA licence could be sustained when the alleged role of the employee in the misdeclaration had already been negatived by the Settlement Commission.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Settlement Commission had exonerated the person said to be involved and had held that no conscious knowledge of misdeclaration could be attributed to him. Despite this, the Commissioner proceeded on the basis that he had accepted participation in the misdeclaration and revoked the licence. Once the finding of the Settlement Commission was available, the revocation could not be upheld on a contrary assumption regarding his involvement. The proceedings for revocation ought to have been dropped.

Conclusion: The revocation order was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The CHA licence revocation did not survive judicial scrutiny and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a competent statutory forum has exonerated the person said to be involved and has found absence of conscious knowledge of misdeclaration, disciplinary action against the CHA cannot be sustained on the premise of such involvement without disregarding that finding.

---