The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative action with civil consequences can only be taken after affording reasonable opportunity, including the right to cross-examine witnesses. However, the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses may not be prejudicial if the affected party does not request such right and does not suffer any prejudice.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the order dated 11-5-2012 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Law Department under Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (“the Act”) removing his name as Notary Public from the Register of Notaries with immediate effect.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Notary Public for the Teliamura Sub-Division by the State Government in terms of the Certificate of practice dated 18-12-2008 issued by the Law Secretary, Government of Tripura for a period of 5 years. Some complaints of misconduct by the petitioner were made by one Biman Ranjan Dhar Choudhury and 8 others, Ratan Sarkar, Dilip Kumar Sarkar with respect to his functioning as Notary Public on grounds on different dates. The allegations pertained to carrying on unlawful activities such as preparation of false affidavits. Initially, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was directed to enquire into such allegations. The inquiries were actually conducted by the Sub-Deputy Collector-cum-Magistrate, Teliamura Revenue Circle by requiring the petitioner to appear before her with all documents relating to his professional duties. After recording evidence by the Sub-Deputy Collector-cum-Magistrate, she submitted her enquiry report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teliamura, Khowai by making adverse findings against the petitioner. In the meantime, the Under Secretary, Law issued the Notice dated 24-2-2012 upon the petitioner by forwarding a copy of the complaint lodged by one Dilip Kumar Sarkar and asking him to submit his written statement to the Department within 14 days. The petitioner accordingly submitted his written statement denying the allegations made against him and claiming his innocence. One thing led to another and ultimately, the Under Secretary, Law Department issued the Notice dated 3-4-2012 taking cognizance of the complaint of the said Dilip Kumar Sarkar with respect to his complaint dated 16-2-2012 and decided to cause an inquiry against the petitioner. The Notice further mentioned that in the course of inquiry, witnesses would be examined and oral and documentary evidence received. The petitioner was accordingly asked to appear before the competent authority on 7-4-2012 at 4.30 PM with all the evidence he had. The oral evidence of the said Dilip Kumar Sarkar and the Sub-Deputy Collector-cum-Magistrate, Teliamura Revenue Circle were recorded. It was on 11-5-2012, the impugned order was issued by the Under Secretary, Law Department. In the meantime, it may be noted that the said Dilip Kumar Sarkar also lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the erstwhile Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The Bar Council issued the order dated 18-1-2014 of D.C. No. 28 of 2012 inflicted the punishment of removal of his name from the roll of Advocates maintained by it. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Bar Council of India resulted in setting aside the said order and in remanding the case to the Bar Council of Assam, etc. to decide the same afresh, and the same is still pending. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order is stigmatic, arbitrary and illegal. He, therefore, filed this writ petition for quashing the inquiry report dated 24-2-2012 of the Sub-Deputy Collector cum Magistrate and the impugned order removing his name from the Register of Notaries.

3. While contesting the writ petition, the State-respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Notary Public for Teliamura Sub-Division, but denied that he was sincerely and honestly working in that capacity. It is asserted that after his appointment, one allegation after another were received by the Law Department, while some news items against him also appeared in the local daily and that on 16-2-2012, one complaint was received b