Fair hearing in CHA licence revocation matters requires verified records and independent proof before adverse action

Revocation of a CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were held unsustainable where the inquiry was conducted without examining the relevant records and without giving the appellant a fair opportunity to respond. The Tribunal found that the inquiry officer had sought connected documents from Chennai Customs but proceeded to record adverse findings without receiving or verifying them, resulting in an incomplete and unreliable inquiry. It also held that a prior adverse finding in another matter did not relieve the department of its duty to independently establish the present allegations. The impugned order was therefore set aside and relief was granted to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit could be sustained when the inquiry report was prepared without examining the relevant records and without affording a fair opportunity to the appellant.

Analysis: The inquiry report itself showed that the inquiry officer had called for the connected documents from Chennai Customs but had not received them, yet proceeded to record findings against the appellant. The resulting decision was based on an incomplete inquiry and on material that had not been properly verified. Since the appellant could not effectively defend the allegations without the underlying records, the process suffered from a serious breach of fair hearing requirements. The Tribunal also noted that a previous adverse finding in another matter could not dispense with the department's obligation to independently prove the present case.

Conclusion: The revocation and forfeiture order was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---