Removal of Consumer Commission President without show-cause notice violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was appointed as the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), West Tripura, via notification dated 10.04.2025

Following certain complaints and a subsequent inquiry, he was removed from service via a notification dated 12.02.2026

The petitioner challenged the removal, alleging that the inquiry was conducted in violation of statutory procedures and that he was denied access to copies of complaints, witness statements, and the opportunity to cross-examine or rebut allegations

He further contended that the inquiry report was finalized in an arbitrary and predetermined manner

1. Whether the removal of the petitioner from the post of President, DCDRC, was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the statutory procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020.

2. Whether the failure to provide the petitioner with copies of complaints and inquiry materials vitiated the removal order.

Rules 8 and 9 of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020

Fundamental principles of natural justice and Constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21, which necessitate a fair hearing, the issuance of a show-cause notice, and the passing of a reasoned order before any action resulting in serious civil consequences is taken

The Court observed that the respondents failed to follow due process of law in the removal of the petitioner. Specifically, the Court found that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation, nor was a reasoned order passed by the authorities

The Court determined that because the petitioner was denied access to the evidence against him (such as witness statements and inquiry materials), he was deprived of an effective opportunity for defense

Consequently, the Court held that the entire inquiry and the resulting removal notification were procedurally flawed and violated the principles of natural justice

The respondents were directed to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner, receive his explanation, and subsequently pass a reasoned order

The Court clarified that the petitioner is not entitled to perform his duties as President of the DCDRC, West Tripura, during the pendency of this fresh process

All pending miscellaneous applications were closed