S. PARTHASARATHI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

S. PARTHASARATHI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

The enquiry and subsequent compulsory retirement order were vitiated as the enquiry officer was biased and conducted the enquiry using procedures contrary to the rules of natural justice; further, the officer lacked jurisdiction since he ceased to be Director-in-charge and was not authorised after reversion to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: S. Parthasarathi; Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 September 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Certificate From a High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of High Court set aside; decree of trial court restored; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Departmental Enquiry, Bias, Jurisdiction of Inquiry Officer, Hyderabad Civil Services (classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955
Administrative Law Service Law Natural Justice Departmental Enquiry Bias Jurisdiction of Inquiry Officer Hyderabad Civil Services (classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Parthasarathi

Appellant

State of Andhra Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Certificate From a High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the inquiring officer had authority/jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself

Ratio Decidendi

The enquiry and subsequent compulsory retirement order were vitiated as the enquiry officer was biased and conducted the enquiry using procedures contrary to the rules of natural justice; further, the officer lacked jurisdiction since he ceased to be Director-in-charge and was not authorised after reversion to Deputy Director; denial of access to relevant documents constituted deprivation of reasonable opportunity to defend.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of High Court set aside; decree of trial court restored; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appellant deemed to have continued in service.
  • Entitled to arrears of salary and damages as claimed in the plaint.