Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal, Rules 1955 Appellant was under direct control of the Enquiring Officer-He was refuse access to certain  relevant files and documents-Whether the enquir was vitiated and whether the enquiry officer had jurisdiction under the Rules.

The appellant, a clerk-cum-typist was under the direct control of one M, the Deputy Director of Information and Public Relations Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant's case is that M was inimical towards him and harassed him in various ways. As Director-in-charge, M caused the appellant to be suspended from service, and thereafter he framed certain charges against the appellant. The appellant protested against M conducting the enquiry. In spite of protest M. conducted the enquiry. The appellant wanted to inspect several files and documents, but was refused. The appellant, therefore, did not participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted ex-parte and the appellant was found guilty of some of the charges.

On the basis of the Inquiry Report, the Director issued a show cause notice to the appellant. The appellant submitted a written explanation stating that the inquiry was vitiated on account of the bias of the Inquiry Officer, that he was not given reasonable opportunity of defending himself as he was not supplied with the copies of the relevant documents and that the Inquiry Officer had no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry. The Director however, found the appellant guilty and passed an order removing him from service. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, the Government modified the order of removal and ordered the compulsory retirement of the appellant from service.

Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Director was null and void and asked for consequential reliefs etc. The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Before this Court the following points were raised by the appellant: (i) the enquiring officer was biased against the appellant; (ii) the Enquiring Officer had no authority to conduct the enquiry (iii) that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as he was denied access to several files which had a material bearing his defence. Dismissing, the judgment and decree of the High Court, but restoring the decree passed by the trial court,