Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a clerk-cum-typist in the service of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, filed a suit challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed against him on the basis of a disciplinary inquiry. The appellant alleged that the inquiring officer, one Narsing Rao Manvi, was inimical towards him and had harassed him. Manvi, as Director-in-charge of the Information and Public Relations Department, caused the appellant to be suspended and framed charges against him. The appellant protested against Manvi conducting the inquiry on grounds of bias and lack of authority. Despite protest, Manvi conducted the inquiry ex-parte after the appellant refused to participate due to denial of access to relevant files. The appellant was found guilty of some charges, and the Director issued a show cause notice. The appellant submitted a written explanation contending that the inquiry was vitiated by bias, lack of jurisdiction, and denial of reasonable opportunity. The Director found him guilty and passed an order of removal, which was later modified by the Government on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission to compulsory retirement. The appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order was null and void and sought arrears of salary and damages. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the inquiring officer had no jurisdiction as Director-in-charge and no authority after he ceased to be Director-in-charge, and that the inquiry was vitiated by bias and denial of reasonable opportunity. The High Court reversed the trial court's decision, finding no bias, holding that the Government had authorized the Director-in-charge to conduct the inquiry and that the Director could authorize the Deputy Director, and that there was no denial of reasonable opportunity. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined three issues: bias of the inquiring officer, authority of the inquiring officer, and denial of reasonable opportunity. On bias, the Court reiterated the test of real likelihood of bias based on a reasonable apprehension of a reasonable man fully cognizant of the facts, and held that the cumulative circumstances showed that the inquiring officer was inimical towards the appellant, establishing a real likelihood of bias. On authority, the Court held that the Government had ordered the Director to conduct the inquiry, and the inquiring officer's authority as Director-in-charge ended when he reverted to Deputy Director before examining witnesses; further, under Rule 22 of the Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the Director as Head of Department could not delegate the inquiry to another person contrary to the Government's intention. On reasonable opportunity, the Court found that the refusal to allow inspection of files, especially those relied upon in the inquiry report, was unjustified and vitiated the inquiry. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the trial court's decree, declaring the compulsory retirement order null and void and holding that the appellant was deemed to have continued in service and entitled to arrears of salary claimed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Bias - Real Likelihood of Bias - Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 22 - The inquiring officer was previously inimical towards the appellant and had taken steps like causing suspension and framing charges; the test of likelihood of bias is based on a reasonable apprehension of a reasonable man fully cognizant of the facts; if a reasonable man would think on the basis of existing circumstances that the inquiring officer is likely to be prejudiced, that is sufficient to quash the decision without proof of actual bias. Held that there was real likelihood of bias in the present case, and the inquiry and orders based on it were bad (Paras 5-9). B) Service Law - Jurisdiction of Inquiring Officer - Authority to Conduct Inquiry - Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 22 - The Government ordered the Director to conduct the inquiry; the inquiring officer was Director-in-charge initially but reverted to Deputy Director before witnesses were examined; the authority to conduct inquiry came to an end when he ceased to be Director-in-charge; under Rule 22, the Head of the Department cannot delegate the power to inquire to another person; delegation by Director to Deputy Director was contrary to the Government's intention and beyond competence. Held that the inquiring officer was not authorised to conduct the inquiry after he ceased to be Director-in-charge (Paras 10-11). C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Reasonable Opportunity to Defend - Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 22 - The appellant was denied access to files and documents which had a material bearing on his defence, including proceedings relied upon in the inquiry report to substantiate a charge; the refusal was unjustified especially as it was too much to assume that the appellant would remember details of 1951 proceedings. Held that the inquiry was vitiated on this score as well (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant; whether the inquiring officer had authority to conduct the inquiry; whether the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself due to refusal of access to relevant files.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the trial court decree. The order of compulsory retirement was declared null and void; the appellant was deemed to have continued in service and entitled to arrears of salary claimed.
Law Points
- Real likelihood of bias test based on reasonable apprehension
- actual prejudice not required
- authority of inquiring officer limited to designated post
- Head of Department cannot delegate inquiry power contrary to Government direction
- denial of access to relevant files violates natural justice
