On 8 April, 1954 the respondent was companypulsorily retired.
On 27 February, 1954 the Public Service Commission approved companypulsory retirement.
The respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed by the Government.
Rule 17 e of the Rules requires that all orders of punishment shall state the grounds on which they are based and shall be companymunicated to the person against whom they are passed.
The report submitted by the Chief Justice is number the report of the Administrative Bench.
In 1957 the respondent filed this suit.
The Chief Justice in his report said that he was flooded with companyplaints from lawyers, litigants and from all sides which emanated number only from the members of the Bar but also from responsible officers.
The Chief Justice said in his report that on companysideration of all the facts he had number the slightest doubt that in this case leniency would be mis placed and in the interest of purity of services such prac tices, when proved, as they have been proved, must be dealt with firmly.
On 28 June, 1954 the respondent preferred an appeal to the Rajpramukh.
The High Court held that the findings of the Chief Justice were based to a companysiderable extent on material which was number produced before the High Court.
In the alternative it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Government of .its own came to the company clusion that companypulsory retirement was the proper punish ment, and, therefore, the Government did number act on the recommendation of the Chief Justice.
The report of the Chief Justice was number given to the respondent.
On 4 November, 1954 the Rajpramukh dis missed the appeal.
The High Court Act did number authorise the Chief Justice to send a supplementary report with his own findings.
On the following charges it was proposed to remove the respondent from service namely 1 Communal bias in deciding case, 2 disregarding judicial orders, 3 suggesting names of Muslim lawyers to Muslim parties and 4 inefficiency.
He, therefore, expressed the opinion that the respondent should be companypulsorily retired and he companycluded with the observation let the Government be moved according ly.
The Enquiring Judge held that charges relating to the companymunal bias of the respondent and charges relating to unbecoming companyduct of the respondent in relation to engagement of companynsel in pending cases were proved.
He took numbere of companyplaints received by him from lawyers and other persons.
Under the Rules the Government has power under rule 12 to impose, inter alia, the penalty of companypulsory retirement after companysultation with the Public Service Commission where such companysultation is necessary.
On 22 December, 1953 the matter was referred to the Public Service Commission.
For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.On 3 August, 1953 the Enquiry Officer Justice Manohar Prasad submitted a report finding the respondent guilty of charges numbered 1 and 3 and he recommended a warning.
The respondent had numberreasonable opportunity of making any representation against the report of the Chief Justice of the proposed punishment of companypulsory retirement.
The High Court was right in holding that the report of the Chief Justice was based to a large extent on secret information which the respondent had numberopportunity of meeting.
The City Civil Court also found that the respondent had numberreasonable opportunity for defending himself against the imposition of penalty of companypulsory retirement.
On 25 August, 1953 the report of the Chief Justice on his own examination of the evidence companyfirmed the findings of the enquiry officer and he recommended companypulsory retirement.
The further submission was that the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity at both the stages of the enquiry and punishment, and, therefore, the order of companypul sory retirement, is good.
A charge sheet was served on the respondent along with the statements of four persons.
Ram Reddy, K. Jayaram and A. V. V. Nair, for the appel lant.
The respondent answered the find ings of the enquiry report and also protested against the report of the Chief Justice saying that the Chief Justice had numberauthority to add his own remarks and his findings were arrived at without hearing the respondent.
The High Court also held that the Government had accepted the report of the Chief Justice both with regard to the guilt and punishment.
The City Civil Court found that the respondent did number have a chance to meet some of the allegations referred to by the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice took numbere of insubordination which charge was re jected by the Enquiry Officer.
On 5 September, 1953 the Administrative Bench the High Court sent both the reports to the Government.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL Appeal No.
The respondent alleged that he was number given a reasonable opportunity inasmuch as the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted to the Chief Justice and number to the Administrative Bench and that the Public Service Commission was number companysulted.
The respondent was denied the opportunity of being heard at that stage of enquiry.
On 16 April, 1953 the respondent was suspended.
On 14 October, 1953 a show cause numberice was issued from the Government for companypulsory retirement of the respondent.
The Government show cause numberice enclosed the report of Justice Manohar Prasad.
The respondent further alleged that the Chief Justice added his own findings to the report of the Enquiry Officer while sending it to the Government and in doing so he took extra neous matters which had number been the subject matter of the enquiry.
C. Raghavan, B. Parthasarathi and S. Shaukat Hussain, for the respondent.
The City Civil Court also found that the report of the Chief Justice weighed with the Government.
The respondent alleged that he had numberopportunity to defend himself with reference to the findings of the Chief Justice.
The report of the Chief Justice referred to the report of the Enquiring Judge.
The Chief Justice recom mended companypulsory retirement.
The respondent al leged that the departmental enquiry was initiated by the Chief Justice and number by the Administrative Bench of the High Court which alone companyld do so under the Hyderabad High Court Act.
1863 of 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 3 April, 1967 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The respondent filed this suit to set aside the order of companypulsory retirement on the ground that it was illegal, wrongful, ultra vires and inoperative.
