Independent statutory power under a safety scheme upheld despite no prior suspension, with natural justice satisfied by prior explanation.

Regulation 26 was construed as a safety-oriented scheme under which the Regional Inspector may act on incompetence, negligence or misconduct after obtaining a written explanation, while the Board retains an independent power to confirm, modify, reduce or cancel the certificate after such inquiry as it thinks fit. The absence of a prior formal suspension by the Inspector did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction, because the Inspector's recommendation was only material before the Board and not a binding direction. Natural justice was satisfied where the affected person had already submitted an explanation to the Board in response to the report, so the cancellation was not invalid on the grounds raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the shot-firer's certificate under Regulation 26 was invalid because the Regional Inspector had not first suspended the certificate, because the Inspector's recommendation to cancel was said to be impermissible, and because the Board allegedly failed to afford a fresh hearing before passing the order.

Analysis: Regulation 26 was read as a safety-oriented scheme designed to empower the Regional Inspector, after giving an opportunity for written explanation, to act against incompetence, negligence, or misconduct, and to enable the Board, after such inquiry as it thought fit, to confirm, modify, reduce, or cancel the certificate. The Board's power was held to be independent and triggered by the Inspector's report, so the absence of a prior formal suspension did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction. The Inspector's recommendation was treated as part of the material placed before the Board and not as a binding dictate, and the Board's concurrence with that material did not show surrender of its own judgment. On fairness, the respondent had already submitted an explanation to the Board in response to the report, and in the circumstances that was treated as sufficient compliance with the requirements of natural justice and reasonable opportunity.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was not vitiated on any of the grounds urged, and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the legal question concerning the construction of Regulation 26, and the Board's order of cancellation was upheld in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory safety scheme confers independent power on the final authority to act on a report and to inquire as it thinks fit, the absence of a prior formal suspension by the subordinate officer does not invalidate the final order, and compliance with natural justice is satisfied if the affected person has been given a fair opportunity in the circumstances.

---