S. PARTHASARATHI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 20-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

8 
c 
D 
F 
G 
II 
S. PARTHASARATHI 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
September 20, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, ]J.j 
697 
Hyderabad Civil Services (Classificatio11, Control and Appeal, Ru/as 1955 . 
Appellant was under direct control of the Enquiring Offie<r-He_ was ref!'seJ 
access to certain relevant files and documents-Whether the enqu1r,, 1v4' vl11ated 
and whether the enquiry ofjicer had jurisdiction under the Rules. 
The appellant, a clerk-cum·typist was under the direct control of one M, th". 
Deputy Director of Information aad Public Relations Department in the State of 
Andhra Pradesh. The appellant's case. is that M was irumical towards him llDd 
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 thl' 
appellant. The appellant protested against M conducting the enquiry. In spite of 
. protest M. conducted the enquiry. The appellant wanted to inspect several fileA 
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 Directqr issued a show cause notic:t-
to the appellant. The appeUant. submitted a written explanation stating that thl.: 
inquiry was vitiated on account of the bias of the-Inquiry Officer, that he wai-
not given reasonable opportunity of defending himself as he was not supplied with 
the copies of the relevant documents and that the Inquirv Officer had no jurisdic-
tion to conduct the enquiry. The Director however, foultd the appellant guilty 
and passed an order removing him from service. l'hereafter, on the recommen-
dation of the Public Service Commission, the Government modified the order cf 
removal and ordered the compulsory retirement of the appellant from service. 
Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order of tlu:-
Director was· null and void and asked for consequential reliefs etc. The triaJ 
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 th~ aooellant; (ii) the Enquiring Officer had 
no authority to .conduct the enquiry (iii) that the d.ppeUant was not given a rca~ 
sonable opportunity to defend himself as he was denied access to several file.n 
which had a material bearing upan his defence. Dismissing, the judgment 111J<l 
decree of the High Court, but restoring the decree passed by the trial court, 
HELD: (i) The Inquiring Officer was biased aad he adopted a procedw" 
which is contrary to the rules of natural justice. Therefore, the order of his com-
pulsol1' retirement is bad. The cumulative effect of the circumstances, with ·the 
exhibits [e.g. Medical Officer's reply (Ex. 8) stating that the appellaat was not 
insane, as sug~ested by M etc.,] and other evidence showed that the Inquiring 
Officer was inimical towards the appellant. 
(ii) The test of likelihood of bia. which has been applied in a number o{ 
cases is based on a "reasonable apprehension" of a reasonable man fully cognizant 
of the facts. The courts have quashed decisions on the strength of the reasonable 
suspicion of the party aggrieved )Vithout having made any finding that a real like-
lihood of bias in fact existed. 
· 
R. v. Huggins, [1895f ( Q.B. S63, R v. Sussex II., Ex. P. McCarthy, [1924\ 
I K. B. 2S6, Cottle v. Cottle, [1939) 2 All E.R. S3S and R. v. Abingdon II., Ex. 
P. Cousins, [1964) 108 SJ. 840. referred to. 
I~ R. v. Camborne, II. Ex. P. Pearce, [19SSJ I Q.B. 41 and 51, the court, after· 
a review of the relevant cases. held that real likelihood of bias was the proper ta;: 
and ~at '! real likelihCJ'?'1 of bias had to be made to appear not only from the 
maten~ tn fsct !""Ort••~ by the party complaining, but from such further facl.< 
as h~ .mtght readily have ascertained and easily verified in the course Of hi, 
1nqu1nes. 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(iii) Th~ question, as to whether a real likelihood of bias existed in a parti-
cular case, 1s to be determin~d ~n the probabilities to be inferred from the 
cir~ 
c~mstances by the court ob1ect1~ely, or, upon the b8;-"iS, of the impression that 
might reason~?Iy be.lef~ on ~e mind.~ of the party aggrieved or jhe public at large. 
~e tests of real ltkehhO?d ! and re3;sonable suspicion" 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.