Cancellation of recruitment licene and forfeiture of the security deposit by the Government.
Respondent No. 3 by the impugned order dated 06.03.2006 cancelled the recruitment licence of the petitioner Company and forfeited its security deposit by exercising power under section 14 of the Ordinance. The impugned order of cancellation of the recruitment licence and forfeiture of the security deposit was challenged in the Writ Petition on the grounds (a) that the satisfaction of the Government as required under section 14 of the Ordinance was not recorded and (b) it violated the principle of natural justice as the petitioner Company was not given any opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order and (c) because of pendency of a criminal case against accused Md. Swapan over the self_same matter, administrative action could not be taken. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the relevant Annexures to the Writ Petition, the Appellate Division found that the principle of natural justice was substantially complied with before passing the impugned order inasmuch as Annexure 'G' virtually amounts to a show cause notice and the Wirt Petitioner duly replied to the same. The High Court Division found that on the basis of the allegation of fraud brought by respondent No. 5, The BMET authority constituted a two member Committee to enquire into the allegations and the Enquiry Committee found the involvement of Md. Swapan in committing the offence of cheating by deframding the complainant, along with others as agent of the petitioner Company. The enquiry report clearly showed that initially the authority, asked the petitioner company to refund the money to respondent No. 5 but no money was refunded, following which the impugned order was passed. In the absence of any prohibition either express or emptied in the Ordinance that a recruitment licence and forfeiture of the security deposit could not be made because of the pendency of a criminal case before a competent Court, the impugned order suffers from no legal infirmity.
Rahmania Travels Limited. -Vs.-The State 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 190