IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4250 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Hussain S/o.Hafeez Hussain R/o.Narketpally, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Executive Director, Hyderabad Zone, MGBS, Hyderabad-12. 3 Sri.B.Vara Prasad A.P.S.R.T.C. Regional Manager's Office, Ranga Reddy Region (Enquiry Officer), MHBS, Hyderabad-12. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents:MR. V.PADMANABHA RAO FOR SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 18.02.2009 whereby the petitioner’s request for change of enquiry officer was rejected. On 12.03.2009, this Court permitted the enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry, but directed the disciplinary authority not to pass a final order. It has now come out that the enquiry officer completed the enquiry and submitted his enquiry report. In view of the above-mentioned interim order, no final order has been passed by the disciplinary authority. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold, namely, respondent No.3 is biased and no proper opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to put forth his case. As regards the bias, the averments contained in the affidavit and the instances pointed out by the petitioner are not enough to prove the allegations of bias. As held by the Supreme Court in E.P.ROYAPPA v. STATE OF TAMILNADU[1], it is rather easy to make allegations of mala fides or bias rather than proving the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner while conceding on this aspect, however, submitted that his client is denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that enquiry report has already been submitted by respondent No.3 to the disciplinary authority. On the facts of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner requires a further opportunity of putting forth his case before the enquiry officer. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to fix the dates of hearing as 05.05.2009 and 06.05.2009 (these dates are chosen by the learned counsel for the petitioner). He shall reopen the enquiry and give full opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses, if any examined by the enquiry officer, and to adduce evidence from his side. Since the dates are chosen by the petitioner’s counsel, the enquiry officer shall be free to close the enquiry if the petitioner does not participate in the enquiry on the above- mentioned two dates. It is made clear that no formal notices need be issued by the enquiry officer to the petitioner for the enquiry to be held on the above-mentioned dates. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.5578 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] AIR 1974 SC 555