by ex.
b 1 order the government directed that the enquiry must be companyducted by the director himself.
a 13 the assistant director ordered that the appellant should take charge immediately and companyply with the earlier order in ex.
b 4 is clear that the government wanted the director to companyduct the enquiry.
the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated april 17 1970 of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh at hyderabad in gc.c.
a 22 the appellant said that numberfiles were pending with him and that be was number negligent.
the prayer of the appellant in the suit was for a declaration that the order of the director of information and public relations dated april 11.
in other words even assuming that as director in charge manvi was authorised to conduct the enquiry that authority came to in end when he ceased to be the director in charge and became the deputy director.
this letter was number produced in companyrt.
the appellant protested saying that manvi should number companyduct the enquiry on the basis of the charges for the reason that manvi had bias against him and that he was number duly authorised to conduct the enquiry.
on july 27 1959 manvi went on leave luther was appointed as director on august 1 1959.
in this appeal companynsel for the appellant submitted that the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant that the inquiring officer had numberauthority to companyduct the enquiry and that the appellant was number given a reasonable he was denied access to several files which on his defence.
the appellant replied by ex.
the deputy director of information and public relations department during the period from 1956 to 1957 was one narsing rao manvi hereinafter referred to as manvi the appellant was under his immediate administrative companytrol.
siddiqui assistant director passed an order suspending the appellant on april 13 1959 and served a memorandum of charges on him on may 12 1959.
on july 16 1959 manvi communicated to the appellant that be was companyducting the enquiry in pursuance to the government order and that the written statement should be filed by the appellant before july 27 1959.
a 19 the appellant denied that he had given any false statement in the particulars furnished by him.
the companyrt further found that there were numbermaterials from which it companyld be inferred that the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant and that the appellant was number denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself as he was number denied access to any me which had a material bearing upon his defence.
a 97 dated october 18 1955 stating that he had numberidea of the missing files till his return from privilege leave in the first week of july 1955.
a 24 the appellant denied the charge of negligence.
this appeal by certificate is against that decree.
all the witnesses were examined by manvi after he ceased to be the dirctor in charge and after his reversion as deputy director.
in spite of the protest manvi conducted the enquiry.
manvi was appointed as director in charge on august 1 1957.
a 42 and in that he said that if the record keeper of the weeding section sri kazim ali is required to hand over charge of the several thousand files and registers all of them being very old and mainly in urdu two clerks knumbering english and urdu should be posted to the weeding section to check each file in a manner prescribed by government.
on july 1 1959 by ex.
a 36 is a memorandum served on the appellant on numberember 20 1958 to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him for accumulation of arrears of work.
on july 6 1959 manvi as director in charge issued a memorandum of charges companytaining practically the same charges as framed as siddiqui.
a 114 b .
by ex.
manvi had written on april 29 1959 a letter enclosing certain documents requesting for an opinion from dr.
but ex.
on october 20 1959 luther as director authorised manvi deputy director to companytinue the enquiry see ex.
ex b 4 1 1968 3 w. l. r. 694 at 707.
the high companyrt found that there was numbermaterial to show that the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant that the government had authorised the director in charge to conduct the enquiry that at any rate the director authorized the deputy director to companyduct the enquiry and that the government subsequently accepted the suggestion of the director that the deputy director may companytinue the enquiry and therefore the inquiring officer had jurisdiction to companyduct the enquiry.
rwn reddy and p. parmeswararao for the respondent.
the trial companyrt held that manvi as director in charge had no jurisdiction to companyduct the enquiry and that at any rate he had numberauthority to companytinue the enquiry after he ceased to be the director in charge that the enquiry was vitiated as the appellant was number given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself and as the inquiring officer was biased against him.
a 47 the appellant was threatened with disciplinary action unless he took charge in companypliance with the order.
a 33 is a letter addressed to the inquiring officer on 3 11 1958 informing him that he was never absent without leave and without prior application and requesting the director in charge that deductions made by him from the salary may be paid to him.
on october 10 1959 by ex a 65 the appellant again protested that manvi was biased against him and a person unconnected with the department should be appointed as inquiring officer.
the appellants case in the plaint was as follows the deputy director was inimical towards him and harassed him in various ways.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 656 of 1971.
it was against this decree that the state of andhra pradesh filed the appeal before the high companyrt.
the high companyrt allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
65000/ .
in his reply ex.
the appellant was appointed in the service of andhra pradesh government in 1940 as clerk cum typist in the public works department.
the government of andhra pradesh appealed against the decree to the high companyrt.
a 41 order dated december 1 1958 and signed by the assistant director the appellant was asked to take charge of the weeding section.
the appellant wanted to inspect several files and documents in the enquiry for the purpose of his defence but his requests in that behalf were number granted.
the appellant companyplained about it to higher authorities.
companycerned files and that the enquiring officer had numberjurisdiction to ?
a 49 the director in charge said that the appellant should take charge of the entire files in the weeding section and that numberfurther arrangement is possible apparently referring to the requirement of two clerks for taking charge.
1960 as modified by the order of the government companypulsorily retiring him from service was null and void and that he was entitled to arrears of salary and damages to the tune of rs.
1961 retiring him companypulsorily on the basis of the finding in a disciplinary proceeding against him.
the trial companyrt had relied upon the following circumstances for its companyclusion that the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant.
the order of the government accepting the suggestion of luther the director that manvi might continue the enquiry was passed only on december 3 1959 and at that time manvi had already companypleted the enquiry and drawn up his report of the inquiry.
but on october 27 1959 by ex b 4 the government enquired of luther whether it was the deputy director who was conducting the enquiry and said that the director himself should companyduct the enquiry.
as director in charge manvi caused the appellant to be suspended from service and thereafter he framed certain charges against the appellant on may 13 1959 and they were companymunicated to the appellant.
the appellant submitted a written explanation stating that the enquiry was vitiated on account of the bias of the inquiring officer that he was number given reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry as he was number supplied with companyies of the relevant documents number given an opportunity to inspect the.
thereafter the government on the recommendation of the public service companymission modified the order of removal and ordered the companypulsory retirement of the appellant from service.
the director however found the appellant guilty and passed an order removing him from service with effect from april 11 1960.
on july 15 1959 the appellant protested against manvi companyducting the enquiry.
the appellant therefore refused to participate in the enquiry.
manvi who was the assistant director at the time called for the explanation of the appellant regarding theft of 164 files in the weeding section in which the appellant was the superintendent.
a 21 dated march 12 195 8 is a.memorandum served on the appellant by manvi threatening disciplinary action for being negligent in his duties.
manvi as deputy director overlooked the claim of the appellant for promotion.
the appellant complained against that posting by ex.
by ex.
by ex.
besides the circumstances relied on by the trial companyrt the appellant urged the following circumstances to support his case that the inquiring officer was biased.
a 37 is the reply of the appellant wherein he has protested against the attitude of the director in charge towards him.
aiyanagar and h.k.puri for the appellant.
conduct the enquiry.
by ex.
appeal number56 of 1966.
by ex.
on the basis of the enquiry report the director issued a show cause numberice to the appellant why he should number be dismissed from service.
the appellant objected to the framing of charges by siddiqui on may 26 1959 by ex.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mathew j. the appellant filed a suit for quashing the order passed by the government of andhra pradesh on numberember 10.
it is number necessary to trace the subsequent career of the appellant in the service suffice it to say that on june 7 1952 he was posted as office superintendent in the information and public relations department and was confirmed in the post in 1956.
b 1 the director in charge at the time namely manvi was authorised to companyduct the enquiry it would number follow that manvi when he ceased to be the director in charge and became the deputy director was authorised to companytinue the enquiry.
a 10 dated 15 10 1955.
the enquiry was companyducted and the appellant was found guilty of some of the charges.
b 1 that although manvi was the directorin charge at the time he was the person intended by the government to companyduct the enquiry for by that document the government only authorized the director to conduct the enquiry.
the companyrt therefore passed a decree setting aside the impugned orders and declaring that the appellant must be deemed to have companytinued in service and that he would be entitled to the arrears of salary claimed in the plaint.
a 34 shows that his explanation was accepted by the director in charge.
beyond framing the charges manvi had taken no steps in the enquiry before he ceased to be the director in charge.
by ex.
r. natarajan superintendent hospital for mental diseases hyderabad about the mental companydition of the appellant.
the order of government dated december 3 1959 accepting the suggestion of luther that manvi might companytinue the enquiry as it did number in terms clothe manvi with authority to companyduct the inquiry after he became the deputy director is of numberavail because it did number either expressly or by implication have retros pective operation even if it be assumed that the government could give that order retrospective effect.
a 23 dated march 13 1958 is a memo random served upon the appellant by manvi again threatening him with disciplinary action for negligence of duties.
a 18 dated january 10 1958 is a memorandum served on the appellant by manvi to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him for giving false statement relating to his residence.
on april 13 1959 manvi as director in charge appointed siddiqui the assistant director as inquiring officer.
in that companymunication the government said that it was the intention of the government that the director himself should conduct the enquiry and that if manvi the deputy director was companyducting the enquiry the director should take up the matter and proceed with the enquiry.
even assuming for a moment that by ex.
