JUDGMENT

RAY, C.J.I. :— This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 3rd April, 1967 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The respondent filed this suit to set aside the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that it was illegal, wrongful, ultra vires and inoperative. The respondent alleged that the departmental enquiry was initiated by the Chief Justice and not by the Administrative Bench of the High Court which alone could do so under the Hyderabad High Court Act. The respondent alleged that he was not given a reasonable opportunity inasmuch as the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted to the Chief Justice and not to the Administrative Bench and that the Public Service Commission was not consulted. The respondent further alleged that the Chief Justice added his own findings to the report of the Enquiry Officer while sending it to the Government and in doing so he took extraneous matters which had not been the subject-matter of the enquiry. The respondent alleged that he had no opportunity to defend himself with reference to the findings of the Chief Justice.

3. The High Court held that the report of the High Court took into consideration extraneous matters and thus deprived the respondent from giving a reasonable opportunity (sic). The High Court therefore, held that Article 311 (2) was violated. The High Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court but modified the order to the extent that the respondent was entitled to arrears of salary.

4. The Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules referred to as the Rules contain in Part III the following relevant provisions. Rule 9 (b) states that compulsory retirement before completion of 30 years or 25 years of qualifying service is one of the penalties. Rule 12 provides that the Government may impose any of the penaltiesmentioned in items (ii) to (viii) of Rule 9 on members of the State Services after consultation with the Public Service Commission where such consultation is necessary. Rule 17 (b) provides that in every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a Service any of the penalties mentioned in items (iv), (vi), (vii), and (viii) of Rule 9, the grounds shall be communicated. The charge are to be communicated together with the statement of the allegations on which each charge is based. A written statement is required to be filed by the officer and an enquiry shall be held. After the enquiry has been completed, the person charged shall be entitled to put in, if he so desires, any further written statement in his defence. After the enquiry has been completed and after the authority competent to impose the penalty mentioned in that clause has arrived at provisional conclusions, the person charged shall be supplied with the copy of the report of the enquiring authority and be called upon to show cause within a reasonable time against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted.

5. Rule 14 states that after completing the oral enquiry, if any, and giving the person charged an opportunity of making a written statement, the enquiry officer should record his findings on each charge, the reason for such findings and recommendations as regards the penalty on each of the charges. Rule 16 states that on receipt of the report of the enquiry officer the punishing authority should arrive at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed and the person charged shall be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiry officer and be called upon to show cause within a reasonable time why the particular penalty or penalties should not be inflicted upon him. Any representation submitted by the person charged in this behalf shall be duly taken into consideration by the punishing authority before final orders are passed.

6. The Rules further provide that in a case in which it is necessary to consult the Public Service Commission according to the provisions of the Public Service Commission Regulations, the complet