The HC held that the impugned adjudicative order violated the...

The HC held that the impugned adjudicative order violated the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, because the officer who conducted the personal hearing did not render the decision; a successor officer decided the matter without affording a fresh hearing. Reliance on administrative guidance requiring prompt issuance of orders following personal hearings reinforced that divided responsibility between hearing and decision-making undermines fairness. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned order as vitiated for denial of a fair hearing and allowed the petition, directing that any fresh decision be taken by the officer who affords the hearing or, if by a successor, only after providing the petitioner a fresh opportunity of personal hearing.