Natural justice in de novo adjudication requires full document supply and fair cross-examination before fresh decision on remand.

In de novo adjudication, failure to supply all relied-upon documents and to afford a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination breaches natural justice; the matter was therefore remanded for fresh decision after full compliance. The Bench also found that the impugned order largely reproduced the earlier order already set aside, showing non-application of mind to the remanded issues. That defect reinforced the need to set the order aside and require fresh adjudication, with the remaining documents supplied, cross-examination and personal hearing permitted, and the matter decided anew in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were denied a fair opportunity in the de novo proceedings because some relied-upon documents were not supplied and an effective opportunity to cross-examine witnesses was not given; (ii) whether the impugned order warranted interference on the ground that it substantially reiterated the earlier order without independent consideration of the issues.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were denied a fair opportunity in the de novo proceedings because some relied-upon documents were not supplied and an effective opportunity to cross-examine witnesses was not given.

Analysis: The remand order required supply of all non-supplied documents and a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination. Three of the eight requested records were still not supplied. As regards witnesses, the appellants had sought cross-examination of nine persons, and although some witnesses appeared, the Bench found that, in the interest of justice, one further final opportunity should be granted to complete the exercise after supply of the documents. This was considered necessary to satisfy the requirements of natural justice and to enable complete confrontation of the evidence.

Conclusion: The appellants succeeded on this issue and were entitled to a further opportunity to receive the documents and cross-examine the witnesses.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order warranted interference on the ground that it substantially reiterated the earlier order without independent consideration of the issues.

Analysis: The Bench found substance in the contention that the impugned order had reproduced the findings of the earlier order that had already been set aside, indicating non-application of mind to the matters remanded for fresh adjudication. That circumstance reinforced the need for a further remand so that the adjudicating authority could decide the issues afresh after compliance with the directions earlier issued.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and required to be set aside with a fresh adjudication on remand.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed by way of remand, with directions to supply the remaining documents, permit a reasonable opportunity of cross-examination and personal hearing, and then decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a de novo adjudication is ordered, failure to supply all relied-upon documents and to provide a reasonable opportunity of cross-examination constitutes a breach of natural justice, warranting remand for fresh decision after full compliance.

---