MATHEW. J. - (1.) THE appellant filed a suit for quashing the order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on November 10, 1961 retiring him compulsorily on the basis of the finding in a disciplinary proceeding against him. THE trial court decreed the suit. THE Government of Andhra Pradesh appealed against the decree to the High Court. THE High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. This appeal, by certificate, is against that decree.
(2.) THE appellant was appointed in the service of Andhra Pradesh Government in 1940 as Clerk-cum Typist in the Public Works Department. It is not 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. THE Deputy Director of Information and Public Relations Department, during the period from 1956 to 1957 was one Narsingh Rao Manvi, hereinafter referred to as Manvi. THE appellant was under his immediate administrative control. The appellant's case in the plaint was as follows: The Deputy Director was inimical towards him and harassed him in various ways. Manvi was appointed as Director-in-charge on August 1, 1957. As Director-incharge, Manvi caused the appellant to be suspended from service and thereafter he framed certain charges against the appellant on May 13, 1955 and they were communicated to the appellant. The appellant protested saying that Manvi should not conduct the enquiry on the basis of the charges for the reason that Manvi had bias against him and that he was not duly authorised to conduct the enquiry. In spite of the protest Manvi conducted the enquiry. 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 not granted. The appellant, therefore, refused to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted and the appellant was found guilty of some of the charges. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Director issued a show cause notice to the appellant why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant submitted a written explanation stating that the enquiry was vitiated on account of the bias of the inquiring officer, that he was not given reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry as he was not supplied with copies of the relevant documents nor given an opportunity to inspect the concerned files and that the enquiring officer had no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry. The Director, however, found the appellant guilty and passed an order removing him from service with effect from April 11, 1960. Thereafter, the Government, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, modified the order of removal and ordered the compulsory retirement of the appellant from service.
(3.) 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, 1960 as modified by the order of the Government compulsorily retiring him from service was null and void and that he was entitled to arrears of salary and damages to the tune of Rs. 65,000/-. The trial court held that Manvi as Director-in-charge had no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry and that, at any rate he had no authority to continue the enquiry after he ceased to be the Director-in-charge, that the enquiry was vitiated as the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself and as the inquiring officer was biased against him. The court therefore passed a decree setting aside the impugned orders and declaring that the appellant must be deemed to have continued in service and that he would be entitled to the arrears of salary claimed in the plaint.;