THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18896 of 2005 DRAFT ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing order in Ref.No.1617/05 dated 29.7.2005 dismissing the petitioner from service without taking into consideration the directions of this Court in W.P.No.9821 of 2004 dated 17.6.2004 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Petitioner, while working as Clerk in the first respondent Bank was proceeded against departmentally for certain misconduct alleged against him. A charge sheet was issued on 11.11.2003 and he submitted explanation on 3.2.2004. The Chief Executive Officer-fourth respondent was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. Petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 12.5.2004 requesting for change of enquiry officer as the petitioner appeared as one of the witnesses and gave evidence against the said Enquiry Officer (Chief Executive Officer) earlier. When the representation of the petitioner did not yield any result, he filed W.P.No.9821 of 2004 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.6.2004 observing as under: “This writ petition is filed against the action of the first and second respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 12.5.2004 for change of Enquiry Officer on the ground that some enquiry is pending against the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner gave evidence against the Enquiry Officer under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for misappropriation of funds. The respondents have not considered for change of Enquiry Officer in spite of giving representation. Hence, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the enquiry conducted under the Act for misappropriation of funds, he gave a statement against the Enquiry Officer-third respondent and therefore naturally Enquiry Officer-third respondent will be biased so as to take revenge against the petitioner. Precisely, for that reason the writ petitioner gave a representation on 12.5.2004 for change of Enquiry Officer-third respondent. Therefore, it is for the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the writ petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner made on 12.5.2004 for change of Enquiry Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No further enquiry should be conducted by the respondents till the disposal of the representation of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.” According to the petitioner, he had brought the above order to the notice of the respondents and requested for change of Enquiry Officer, but the respondents, instead of taking into consideration of the orders of this Court, passed the impugned order dated 29.7.2005 dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that the charges levelled against him were proved. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.Rama Rao strenuously contended that the Chief Executive Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the present case, against whom petitioner gave evidence in the enquiry conducted against the CEO, therefore it may not be desirable to allow the Chief Executive Officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that the representation of the petitioner was not taken into consideration and the respondents have passed final orders on 29.7.2005 dismissing the petitioner from service and thus, the very appointment of Chief Executive Officer as Enquiry Officer in the present case is vitiated. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for respondents Mr.K.Vasudeva Reddy strenuously contended that the writ petition is filed against the Cooperative Bank and therefore it is not maintainable and that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in appointing the Chief Executive Officer as Enquiry Officer. It is contended that in fact, the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him, therefore no interference is called for with the order of dismissal passed by the respondents. Further, the representation purported to have been made by the petitioner on 12.5.2004 for change of enquiry officer and the writ petition was disposed of on 17.6.2004, whereas the enquiry itself was concluded on 1.6.2004. Therefore, neither the representation dated 12.5.2004 could be considered nor any action could be taken as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.9821 of 2004 dated 17.6.2004. In such situation, the enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute that the petitioner had deposed as a witness against the Enquiry Officer. When the petitioner had given evidence against the Enquiry Officer who is conducting enquiry against the petitioner under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1964, prima facie I am of the opinion that the very enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank against the petitioner is vitiated by bias and prejudice as there is every likelihood of bias against the petitioner. The question whether the enquiry was concluded much prior to the disposal of the writ petition or whether the representation filed by the petitioner on 12.5.2004 has not been disposed of before concluding the enquiry, has no relevance for the purpose of this case. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for respondents that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner as he participated in the enquiry and sought for change of enquiry officer only at the fag end of the enquiry, and it is done only as an after-thought, is unfounded. In the background of facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the cardinal principles of natural justice, require that a person, who is biased or against whom evidence was given by a delinquent officer, cannot be appointed as Enquiry Officer. Justice shall not only be done, but shall also appear to have been done. In this case, the very appointment of CEO as Enquiry Officer vitiates the enquiry and passing of any final order basing on such enquiry report is illegal and arbitrary. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits forthwith. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.1.2008 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18896 of 2005 29.1.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.18896 of 2005 Date: 29th January, 2008 Between: V.Sudarshanam .. Petitioner And Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Urban Bank Building, Karimnagar, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer & others. .. Respondents