IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1225 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/08/2008 in WP NO : 17350 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 K. Krishna Murthy S/o K.V.R.P. Veeranna O/o national Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office, Ananthapur. 2 K. Vasantha Kumar S/o K. Pakeerappa O/o national Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office, Ananthapur. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Hyderabad Regional Office, Personnel Department rep byits Dy. General Manager and Appropriate Authority, at Mohenjahi Market, Hyderabad. 2 Manager and Competent Authority, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Regional Office, Personnel Department 7th Floor at Moghuls Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 Sri. J Panduranga Rao Manager and Enquiry Officer, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Regional Office-86 Srinidhi Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. 4 The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.SRINIVAS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this appeal, the order dated 26-8-2008 passed in W.P.No. 17350 of 2008 has been challenged. The appellants are the original petitioners. They are aggrieved by the order passed in the petition, which was partly allowed. The grievance, which has been ventilated in the petition as well as in this appeal is with regard to change of Enquiry Oﬃcer. It is the case of the appellants that the Enquiry Oﬃcer is an employee of the Company and there are all chances that he may not give a fair decision. We do not agree with the said submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants, as the learned Single Judge has rightly dealt with the said submission. The appellants have not attributed any bias against the Enquiry Officer. Learned Advocate has submitted that there is a provision in the Rules to the eﬀect that a retired employee can also be appointed as an Enquiry Oﬃcer and, therefore, a retired employee should have been appointed as an Enquiry Officer. In our opinion, it is not obligatory on the part of the employer to appoint a retired oﬃcer as an Enquiry Oﬃcer, though it is permissible to avail services of a retired employee as an Enquiry Oﬃcer. In the circumstances, we do not accept the aforestated submission of the learned Advocate. The second submission, which has been made is with regard to change of venue for enquiry proceedings. Though there was no prayer with regard to the change of venue in the petition, we have heard the learned Advocate. The learned Advocate has submitted that the place of enquiry should be changed because all the witnesses are likely to be inﬂuenced by the higher officers during the process of enquiry. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents-employer that practically all the employees of the Branch, where the incident had taken place, are witnesses and if the place of enquiry is changed, the oﬃce may remain closed on several days. Moreover, there is no such provision with regard to change of place of the enquiry. The learned Advocate for the appellants has lastly submitted that the appellants would likely to make a representation with regard to change of venue in the same town to the disciplinary authority. If such a representation is made, we are sure the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Subject to the aforestated observations, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th September, 2008. Note: Issue copy by Monday. /B.O/ GRR