Tribunal rules in favor of appellants due to bias concerns, orders re-hearing for fair opportunity

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, ruling that their concerns regarding bias and lack of a fair hearing were justified. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to a different adjudicating authority for a re-hearing, ensuring the appellants receive a fair opportunity to present their case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Fair and reasonable opportunity of personal hearing.
2. Allegation of bias against the adjudicating authority.
3. Non-availability of relevant documents and witnesses.
4. Adequacy of counter-affidavit by the adjudicating authority.
5. Application of the principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fair and Reasonable Opportunity of Personal Hearing:
The appellants contended that they were not given a fair and reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. The affidavit by appellant Shri Nataraj Prabhu detailed an incident during the personal hearing on 22-10-1991, where the Collector allegedly expressed bias and did not allow a proper hearing. The Tribunal noted that the record of personal hearing was cryptic concerning the appellants, while it was detailed for others, indicating a potential lack of fairness.

2. Allegation of Bias Against the Adjudicating Authority:
The appellants alleged bias, supported by an affidavit stating the Collector's hostile remarks during the personal hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. It referenced legal principles and case law, including P.P. Craig's "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW" and the case of J. Jayalalitha v. T.N. Seshan, to underline that even the appearance of bias warrants a reassessment. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' apprehensions of bias, although not proven as actual bias, were reasonable and could not be dismissed as fanciful.

3. Non-Availability of Relevant Documents and Witnesses:
The appellants argued that they were denied access to crucial documents and the opportunity to cross-examine relevant witnesses, including the President of Sivakasi Master Printers Association. This denial was claimed to have resulted in prejudice against the appellants. The Tribunal recognized this as part of the broader issue of whether the appellants were given a fair hearing.

4. Adequacy of Counter-Affidavit by the Adjudicating Authority:
The appellants pointed out that the adjudicating authority did not file a proper counter-affidavit to their detailed affidavit alleging bias. Instead, para-wise remarks were submitted, which the appellants argued were insufficient. The Tribunal noted that while it is understandable that the Department might not typically file counter-affidavits, in this case, the failure to do so, especially given the serious allegations, was problematic.

5. Application of the Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of the principles of natural justice, including impartiality, the right to a fair hearing, and the appearance of justice being done. It cited several cases, including A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, to emphasize that these principles apply to both judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the principles of natural justice were not adequately observed in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the appellants' apprehensions of bias and lack of a fair hearing were reasonable. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to a different adjudicating authority for a re-hearing, ensuring that the appellants are given a fair opportunity to present their case.

---