M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner is employed as a Constable in the CRPF. He was posted as Assistant Cashier in Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad.

2. On 09-04-2014, he was issued a charge memo alleging that petitioner committed an act of gross negligence and remission in discharge of duty, that he failed in preparation of remittance particulars to ensure proper and correct disbursement of amounts to actual payee after ascertaining the bank remittance particulars of each payee from records,; that because of this, one U. Durga Prasada Rao, a Constable/General Duty, who was performing the duties in the cash section as helping hand to the cashier and assistant Cashier, fraudulently tampered transaction of Government money of Rs. 14,83,104/- by depositing GPF,GIS final payments, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity etc relating to various retired personnel on different dates in the account of his wife Smt. U. Sharada from 3.4.2012 to 13.6.2013. It is alleged that he had concealed his misdeeds from the Assistant Cashier, Cashier and other supervisory staff.

3. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition raising the following contentions;

"(a) The Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad (4th respondent) is the Head of Institution and he signed all the documents and bank registers but he was not issued any charge memo by 3rd respondent;

(b) As per Rule 27 (d) (i) of CRPF Rules, if two or more employees are involved in any enquiry, then a joint enquiry has to be conducted and the petitioner had requested 5th respondent-enquiry officer to do so on 19-04-2014 itself but the latter has not taken any action."

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by 3rd respondent (the appellate authority) on behalf of the respondents categorically stating that the petitioner failed in preparation of disbursement sheet, to ensure: prompt and correct disbursement of amount to the actual payee and that by taking advantage of negligence of petitioner, U. Durgaprasada Rao, who was the Constable on general duty and who was performing duties in the cash section as helping hand to the cashier and Assistant Cashier, fraudulently transferred a sum of Rs. 66,79,155/-, which should have been paid to various retired personnel, into the account of his wife U. Sarada. It is stated that if the petitioner had shown devotion towards his job, this embezzlement of Government money would not have happened.

5. The filing of this counter affidavit by 3rd respondent, who is superior in rank to 5th respondent (enquiry officer) and to the 4th respondent, the disciplinary authority that the petitioner is guilty of the charge is, in my considered opinion, amounts to prejudging the issue thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. In the light of the stand taken by 3rd respondent, it cannot be expected that either the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, who are both subordinates to the 3rd respondent, would take a different stand from 3rd respondent and independently consider the issue. This vitiates the entire proceedings.

6. That an administrative body, which would take a decision causing civil consequences, has to act without bias is settled law. The disciplinary authority is required to be impartial and unbiased and the predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias as held in Secretary to Government, Transport Department v. Muniswamy Mudaliar 1988 Spp. SCC 651.

7. In Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School and others, (1993) 4 SCC 10, the above decision of the Supreme Court was followed and it was reiterated that the test is whether litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias would operate against him and that the maxim justice must not only be done, must also appear to be