TO VERIFY THE FACTS .
16 IN ITS DEFENCE, THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS WERE 'DEVOID OF FOUNDATION AND THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED '.
17 IN ITS REJOINDER, THE COMMISSION CONTENDED THAT THE COURT 'SHOULD DIRECT THAT THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS BE MADE FOR THE FACTS RELATING TO THE EXPERIMENTS OF 28, 29 AND 30 APRIL 1971 TO BE INVESTIGATED BY AN EXPERT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANALYSING ALL THE PAPERS OF THE APPLICANT AND OF HIS SUPERIOR' WHICH ARE OF A PURELY SCIENTIFIC CHARACTER .
18 AFTER THE HEARING, THE COMMISSION RENEWED ITS OFFER TO REFER THE SCIENTIFIC ISSUES TO AN EXPERT .
19 THUS, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS, THE COMMISSION HAS WILFULLY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS .
20 THE APPLICANT'S COMPLAINT, EXPLAINED AFRESH AT THE HEARING, IS THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOTHING AND THUS CREATED A PROBLEM WHICH, WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME, BECAME INCREASINGLY SERIOUS .
21 IT IS THUS NECESSARY TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INQUIRY WHICH THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN WAS TO SEEK EVIDENCE AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE ACCUSATIONS REFLECTING ON THE APPLICANT'S INTEGRITY .
22 NOW THAT THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL HAS BEEN ANNULLED, IT MUST CARRY OUT THIS OBLIGATION WITH THE MINIMUM DELAY .
ON THE THIRD HEAD OF CLAIM
23 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE DECISION PROHIBITING HIM FROM CONTINUING HIS EXPERIMENTS WAS VITIATED AS BEING A MISUSE OF POWERS IN THAT IT WAS INTENDED INDIRECTLY TO PUNISH HIM .
24 THE COMMISSION OBJECTS THAT HIS HEAD OF CLAIM IS INADMISSIBLE AS BEING OUT OF TIME .
25 AS HIS SUPERIOR'S DECISION OF 9 JULY 1971 FORBADE THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE HIS WORK AND AS HE HAD NOT SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THAT DATE, THE COMMISSION'S REPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT WAS MERE CONFIRMATION OF THE PREVIOUS DECISION .
26 THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN IN THE REGULATIONS COMMENCE TO RUN ONLY FROM THE MOMENT THE COMPETENT ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY ADOPTS A DEFINITE ATTITUDE .
27 ON 8 NOVEMBER 1971, THE APPLICANT ASKED THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL TO TAKE A DEFINITE DECISION .
28 ON 3 JANUARY 1972, HAVING RECEIVED NO REPLY FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, THE APPLICANT APPLID TO THE COMMISSION FOR A DEFINITE DECISION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT .
29 THE OBJECTION ON GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
30 THE ORIGINAL DECISION, TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT'S SUPERIOR, TEMPORARILY WITHDRAWING SOME OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES CANNOT REASONABLY BE SEPARATED FROM THE ACCUSATIONS OF DISHONESTY MADE DURING THE SAME PERIOD AGAINST HIM .
31 THOUGH THERE WAS GOOD REASON AT THAT TIME FOR A DECISION OF THIS KIND WHILE THE INQUIRY BEGUN BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL WAS GOING ON, THIS IS TO SOME EXTENT INVALIDATED BY THE FACT THAT THE INQUIRY WAS NOT COMPLETED .
32 THE FACT THAT, WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY BASING ITS DECISION UPON THE ACCUSATIONS OF DISHONESTY, THE COMMISSION CONFIRMED THE DECISION TO PROHIBIT THE APPLICANT FROM CONTINUING HIS RESEARCH, IS NOT ENOUGH TO REMOVE THE IMPRESSION THAT, BECAUSE