L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 4. 10. 1996 passed by the District Judge, Karimnagar - 1st respondent herein, dismissing him from the post of Process Server; as well as the order of the High Court dated 19. 8. 1998 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Process Server in May, 1981 in the District and Sessions Court , Karimnagar. One Mr. Sadavani Balaiah submitted a complaint to the High Court alleging that the petitioner had taken Rs. 30,000. 00 from him promising to get him employed in the Court. He complained that though he was subjected to interview number of times, he was not selected and when he demanded the petitioner to refund the amount, he was dodging the same on one pretext or the other and ultimately prayed as under:"hence, I earnestly implore your honour to kindly order my complaint and be benevolent on me to realise the said amount from the said process server and relieve me from financial strait. Such devilish cheat is not a fit employee of judicial department who will bring stigma to the sacred name of Judicial Department. Kindly take appropriate action against him and punish him suitably" ( 3 ) IN all its earnest the High Court should have proceeded against the petitioner as well as the complainant who, on his own admission, had attempted to secure employment through dubious means. However, the Registrar (Management) has forwarded the complaint to the 1st respondent through covering letter dated 12. 6. 1995 requesting him to take necessary action. On receipt of the letter from the High Court , the 1st respondent got a preliminary enquiry into the matter done through the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report dated 7. 7. 1995, the 1st respondent through his order dated 13. 7. 1995 placed the petitioner under suspension and appointed the Subordinate Judge, Jagtial as the Enquiry Officer to conduct regular departmental enquiry under C. C. A. Rules, 1963 after framing charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 19. 7. 1995 framed the following charge against the petitioner:"that you being the Government Employee working as Process Server in the District and Sessions Court , Karimnagar have taken an amount of Rs. 30,000. The Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 19. 7. 1995 framed the following charge against the petitioner:"that you being the Government Employee working as Process Server in the District and Sessions Court , Karimnagar have taken an amount of Rs. 30,000. 00 (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from one Sadavani Balaiah S/o Lashmaiah R/o Sadasivapalli (v) Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District, about (3) years prior to 29. 5. 1994 (the date of complaint by Sadavani Balaiah submitted to the Hon ble High Court of A. P. , Hyderabad) promising him to provide employment as attender in the District Court , Karimnagar, disclosing that you were very close with the District Judge and promised to give the said amount to the wife of District Judge and secure employment to the said Sadavani Balaiah and you acted in a manner which is un-becoming and derogatory on the part of a Government Employee and to the prestige of the Government and that you have adopted corrupt practices and thereby committed an offence of cheating" ( 4 ) ON receipt of the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted written statement denying the allegation. His case was that he took loan of Rs. 23,300. 00 from the complainant for his domestic needs and executed a promissory note for the same and he denied any promise said to have been made by him to the complainant in securing the employment. In the oral enquiry that was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, the Superintendent of the District Court figured as P. W. 1. He stated that the complainant came to him in the third or fourth week for April, 1995 alleging that the petitioner had taken Rs. 30,000. 00 from him promising to secure an appointment. According to him, the complainant earlier approached the S. I. of Police, II Town, Karimnagar where the petitioner is said to have promised to refund the amount and since he could not get the amount even thereafter, he came to P. W. 1. P. W. 1 further stated that he reported the matter to the then District Judge, who in turn instructed him to call the petitioner as well as the complainant. When he called both of them, the petitioner promised to refund the amount within one month. According to hi, the District Judge thereafter called only the complainant to his chamber and questioned about the matter. When he called both of them, the petitioner promised to refund the amount within one month. According to hi, the District Judge thereafter called only the complainant to his chamber and questioned about the matter. In the cross-examination the petitioner suggested to P. W. 1 that the complainant stated before him that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 23,000. 00 under a pro-note for interest and that the District Judge did not call the complainant to his chamber at all. Some suggestions were made as to the inconsistency in the deposition of P. W. 1 during the preliminary enquiry and regular enquiry. The complainant and other witnesses who appeared during the preliminary enquiry did not appear during the regular enquiry though they were issued summons. ( 5 ) TAKING into account the deposition of P. W. 1 and the material before him, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 14. 9. 1995 holding that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. However, the 1st respondent through his letter dated 27. 10. 1995 took the view that coercive steps should have been taken to secure the presence of the complainant and other witnesses and accordingly directed the Enquiry Officer to secure the presence of the complainant and other witnesses by issuing nonbailable warrants and thereafter proceeded with the matter. Acting on the letter dated 27. 10. 1995, the Enquiry Officer issued nonbailable warrants to the complainant and two other witnesses who appeared during the preliminary enquiry. He recorded their evidence. On the ground that the petitioner was refused permission to cross-examine the complainant and other witnesses, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 1100 of 1996. This Court passed an order dated 18. 4. 1996 permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. The witnesses were accordingly cross-examined by the petitioner on 5. 8. 1996. The Enquiry Officer then filed a report dated 30. 8. 1996 holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. ( 6 ) ACCEPTING the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 30. 8. 1996 the 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 19. 9. 1996 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27. 9. 1996. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent through his orders dated 4. 10. 1996 dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the High Court on the administrative side. 9. 1996 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27. 9. 1996. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent through his orders dated 4. 10. 1996 dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the High Court on the administrative side. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 19. 8. 1998. Thus arises the writ petition. ( 7 ) SRI J. Sudhir, learned counsel for the petitioner made several submissions in challenging the impugned orders. His contentions are: (A) the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent at the behest of the High Court and as such the 1st respondent abdicated his power; (B) the enquiry is vitiated by bias, in that the 1st respondent took it as a matter of prestige of his office and had ignored the report dated 14. 9. 1995; and directed the Enquiry Officer to proceed further through his letter dated 27. 10. 1995; and directed the Enquiry Officer to secure the presence of witnesses through forcible means; (C) The disciplinary authority committed irregularity in not accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 14. 9. 1995; (D) The respondents have violated the provisions of Act 7 of 1993 in securing the presence of the witnesses P. Ws. 2 to 4 and thereby the entire proceedings are vitiated; ( 8 ) HE has also made some other submissions which in a way turn around the contentions referred to above. ( 9 ) SRI C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the High Court , on the other hand, submits that the High Court only forwarded the complaint to the 1st respondent and it did not direct the initiation of any disciplinary proceedings. According to him, the High Court did nothing more than forwarding the complaint and the same cannot be said to be interference with the discretion of the 1st respondent. As regards the second submission, his contention is that the plea of the petitioner as to bias is only vague and no specific instance of bias either on facts or in law has been pleaded much less proved. As regards the second submission, his contention is that the plea of the petitioner as to bias is only vague and no specific instance of bias either on facts or in law has been pleaded much less proved. As regards the third contention, the learned counsel submits that the necessity to issue a notice to the petitioner would arise only if the 1st respondent had set aside or differed with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 14. 9. 1995. Since nothing of this sort has been done and the 1st respondent has only directed the 2nd respondent to gather further evidence by examining the concerned persons, no illegality can be said to have been crept into the proceedings. On the 4th contention as to the violation of provisions of Act 7 of 1993, the learned counsel submits that even if there was any deviation from the procedure prescribed under the Act, the same is not fatal to the enquiry proceedings. On this aspect he further submits that since the petitioner did not raise this ground in his earlier writ petition and since he has participated in the enquiry without taking any objection as to the non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, the objection can be said to have been waived. ( 10 ) WE are not impressed much with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the first ground. The complainant submitted his complaint dated 27. 5. 1995 together with a promissory note. On receipt of the same, the Registrar (Management) through his letter dated 12. 6. 1995 forwarded the same to the 1st respondent. The text of the letter is as under:"i am to enclose herewith a copy of complaint petition cited above and to request you to take necessary action, if any, in the matter at your end" ( 11 ) FROM this it cannot be said that the High Court had in any way directed the 1st respondent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Further, it was not as if the 1st respondent issued charge sheet to the petitioner as soon as he received the letter from the High Court. On the other hand, a preliminary enquiry was got conducted wherein all the concerned persons were examined and only on receipt of the report on 7. 7. 1995, the further steps were taken. Further, it was not as if the 1st respondent issued charge sheet to the petitioner as soon as he received the letter from the High Court. On the other hand, a preliminary enquiry was got conducted wherein all the concerned persons were examined and only on receipt of the report on 7. 7. 1995, the further steps were taken. The 1st respondent has exercised his own discretion in the matter uninfluenced by any other factor. So far as the second contention is concerned, the earned counsel for the petitioner refers to various steps in the process of enquiry and states that the cumulative effect of all these has resulted in bias both on the part of the disciplinary authority as well as the Enquiry Officer. His main contention in support of this ground is the action of the 1st respondent in calling for a further report ignoring the first report dated 14. 9. 1995 and its other related issues. This aspect can be gone into while dealing with ground Nos. ( c ) and ( d ). Therefore, we do not undertake any discussion at this stage. His other submissions relate to certain observations made by the Enquiry Officer in the report suggesting that the petitioner prevailed upon the witnesses, not permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses until this Court passed an order in writ petition. Bias is a facet of principles of natural justice, if established, it will invalidate the proceedings. Therefore, the plea as regards the bias should be specifically pointed and should be of such a magnitude that it would deprive the person concerned; of the protection of principles of natural justice. Certain observations in the enquiry report or comments made at some other stage during the course of enquiry, even if unsustainable, cannot constitute bias. The concept of bias has its own specific limitations. We are convinced that the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if taken on their face value, do not constitute bias. We, therefore, do not accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 12 ) IN a way ground Nos. ( c) and ( d ) are inter related. It is a matter of record that the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 14. 9. 1995. We, therefore, do not accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 12 ) IN a way ground Nos. ( c) and ( d ) are inter related. It is a matter of record that the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 14. 9. 1995. Only P. W. 1 appeared before the Enquiry Officer and neither the complainant nor the other witnesses who appeared during the course of preliminary enquiry appeared before the Enquiry Officer in spite of his efforts. In fact the Enquiry Officer observed in his report dated 14. 9. 1995 that since the disciplinary proceedings are not judicial in nature, he was helpless in procuring the presence of the other witnesses. On the basis of the material available before him, he arrived at a finding that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel submits that once the Enquiry Officer submits report, the disciplinary authority has two options before him. That is; to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer or to disagree with the same. If the disciplinary authority chooses to disagree, he has to issue a show cause notice to the concerned employee stating the reasons on the basis of which he proposes to disagree with the findings. According to him, since in the present case, the 1st respondent had chosen to order fresh enquiry ignoring the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 14. 9. 1995 and no show cause notice was issued before undertaking the same, the proceedings are vitiated. Sri C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, on the other hand, contends that by addressing letter dated 27. 10. 1995 to the Enquiry Officer, the 1st respondent cannot be said to have disagreed with the findings in the report dated 14. 9. 1995. According to him, the purport of the letter dated 27. 10. 1995 is only to secure further evidence so that the matter can be effectively decided instead of permitting it to go in default. ( 14 ) IT was at this stage that the necessity to secure the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 has arises and the means to be adopted thereof became relevant. While it is the complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure stipulated under Act 7 of 1993 was not followed by the respondents in securing the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 has arises and the means to be adopted thereof became relevant. While it is the complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure stipulated under Act 7 of 1993 was not followed by the respondents in securing the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4, the learned standing counsel justifies the action of the respondents permitting terming the procedure as only directory and also by raising the plea of closure. ( 15 ) IN the disciplinary proceedings, the report of the Enquiry Officer plays a pivotal role. It is the Enquiry Officer who will have the advantage of assessing the oral and documentary evidence touching upon the charges framed against the delinquent employee. The findings in the enquiry report provide guidance to the disciplinary authority. There may be cases in which the disciplinary authority may not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Inasmuch as any finding favourable to the employee invests in him, a valuable right, the law requires that whenever the disciplinary authority intends to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, to put the employee on notice by stating the reasons on the basis of which he intends to disagree with the finding. The ultimate decision may vest with the disciplinary authority. Such decision, however, should precede the requirements of law. ( 16 ) WHEN the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, no complications as such would arise, for, if the report is in favour of the employee, the proceedings have to be dropped; and if the findings are against the employee, further proceedings such as issuing of show cause notice proposing certain punishment and other consequential proceedings have to follow. However, when the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he has to record reasons and issue notice to the employee stating as to how and why he intends to differ with the finding. There may be cases where disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the finding; but before he takes a decision whether to accept or to differ with the finding, he may call for further evidence or information from the Enquiry Officer to come to a definite conclusion. There may be cases where disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the finding; but before he takes a decision whether to accept or to differ with the finding, he may call for further evidence or information from the Enquiry Officer to come to a definite conclusion. In such instances, the report which is submitted by the Enquiry Officer would remain and the calling of further information does not result in submission of a new report by the Enquiry Officer. ( 17 ) REVERTING to the facts of the case, it is to be seen whether by addressing the letter dated 27. 10. 1995, the 1st respondent is said to have differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer or had simply called for further information so as to enable him to come to his own conclusion. If it were to be a case of differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 14. 9. 1995, the 1st respondent could have done so only by issuing a notice to the petitioner. That was not done. Therefore, it has to be treated as a case of not differing with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in report dated 14. 9. 1995. Then necessarily, the letter should be taken to be a step to require further information and evidence on the matter. If that be so such calling for further information should not have resulted in a fresh report by the enquiry officer. Submission of fresh enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer would arise if only his earlier report is superseded. Going by the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the purport of the letter dated 27. 10. 1995 was only to call for further information, it has to be concluded that the report dated 14. 9. 1995 was not superseded either expressly or by implication. If that be so, the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 30. 8. 1996 is superfluous and has no legs to stand in law. Consequently, the order of dismissal which is based on the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 30. 8. 1996, which is not in accordance with law, is liable to be set aside. ( 18 ) NOW remains the 4th contention that is the compliance with the provisions of Act 7 of 1993. The departmental enquiries by their very nature are neither judicial nor quasi judicial. 8. 1996, which is not in accordance with law, is liable to be set aside. ( 18 ) NOW remains the 4th contention that is the compliance with the provisions of Act 7 of 1993. The departmental enquiries by their very nature are neither judicial nor quasi judicial. Therefore, the Enquiry Officers are handicapped in securing the presence of any witnesses or requisitioning public record and other ancillary powers. The said powers are available to the authorities only when they are specifically conferred. Having felt the necessity of arming the Enquiry Officers with such powers in securing the presence of certain witnesses or certain records etc. , the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh Departmental Enquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 19 ) SECTION 5 of the Act vests the enquiry authority with the power of Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the matters of summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses, discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits etc. However, the conferment of such power is not absolute. It is only when the authority not below the rank of Secretary to Government, as may be notified by the Government authorizes the enquiring authority in writing in this behalf, such powers can be exercised. In exercise of this power, the Government issued orders nominating the Registrar of the High Court as the authority to authorise the enquiring authorities in relation to the disciplinary matters against the members of judicial service to exercise powers under Section 5 of the Act. ( 20 ) THE complaint of the petitioner is that after the 1st respondent addressed letter dated 27. 10. 1995, the Enquiry Officer procured the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 on 2. 1. 1996 by issuing nonbailable warrants. According to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer did not have the power or authority to secure the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 for issuing nonbailable warrants; since the Registrar of the High Court did not confer such powers upon the Enquiry Officer to exercise the powers under Section 5 of the Act. It is therefore, his complaint that the very process of securing the presence of certain witnesses was in derogation of specific procedure prescribed by the Act and the entire proceedings have become vitiated. It is therefore, his complaint that the very process of securing the presence of certain witnesses was in derogation of specific procedure prescribed by the Act and the entire proceedings have become vitiated. It is not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer was not authorised by the Registrar of the High Court under Section 4 of the Act to exercise the powers under Section 5 of the Act in securing the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4. To that extent it has to be said that the 2nd respondent had acted without authority. Since we found that all proceedings initiated consequent upon the letter dated 27. 10. 1995 cannot be sustained and the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 was secured only in consequence thereof, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the procurement of such witnesses was vitiated on account of non-compliance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Act or that the petitioner is precluded from raising the said objection on the principle of constructive res judicata. ( 21 ) THE learned counsel have referred to various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court in support of their contentions on various issues. Having regard to the conclusion that we have arrived at in the matter, it is not necessary to refer to them. ( 22 ) IN view of our discussion in the preceding paragraphs, we direct as under:- (I) the proceedings of the respondents subsequent to the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 14. 9. 1995 are set aside; (II) The 1st respondent shall consider afresh the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 14. 9. 1995; (III) In case the 1st respondent intends to differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer in the report dated 14. 9. 1995, he shall issue notice to the petitioner stating the basis and reasons on account of which he intends to differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer; (IV) In case the 1st respondent intends to have further information or evidence, he can do so, by keeping the enquiry report dated 14. 9. 1995 in tact. In such event, the Enquiry Officer should forward such further information, but need not submit any further report. (V) If the respondents intend to secure the presence of any witness, notice may be served on such witnesses. 9. 1995 in tact. In such event, the Enquiry Officer should forward such further information, but need not submit any further report. (V) If the respondents intend to secure the presence of any witness, notice may be served on such witnesses. In case coercive steps are needed to secure any documents or presence of witnesses, the procedure stipulated under Act 7 of 1993 shall be followed; (VI) The 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders after following the procedure indicated above as early as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of this order and till such orders are passed, the writ petitioner shall continue to be under suspension. (VII) The petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance only from the date of this order; and the question as to how the period between the date of dismissal and the date of this order has to be treated shall await the outcome of the final orders that may be passed by the 1st respondent. ( 23 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.