Cross-examination in adjudication must be addressed with reasons, or the order may be set aside and remanded.

Where adjudication rests on witness statements, a specific request for cross-examination must be considered and answered by a reasoned order. Failure to deal with that objection leaves the decision non-speaking and vulnerable, because the denial of an effective opportunity to test the statements goes to the root of procedural fairness. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a specific finding on cross-examination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order could be sustained when it failed to address the grievance regarding denial of cross-examination of witnesses and whether the matter required remand for a fresh speaking decision.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the Tribunal's omission to deal with the specific plea that the statements relied upon by the department could not be used without affording an effective opportunity for cross-examination. The order under challenge was found to be non-speaking on this aspect. In adjudicatory proceedings, where witness statements form part of the basis of demand or penalty, the authority must deal with the request for cross-examination and record a reasoned finding. Since the Tribunal had not addressed that issue, the defect went to the root of the adjudication.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and a specific finding on cross-examination. The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the procedural fairness issue, and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudication is founded on witness statements, failure to consider a specific request or objection relating to cross-examination renders the order vulnerable and warrants remand for a reasoned decision.

---