LAXMAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions raise a question relating to the scope of disciplinary authority which can be exercised by the Government against an Arbitrator who is a public servant under the Government and also whether exercise of disciplinary control over the arbitrator can be said to have raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the contracting party.

(2.) THESE two revisions are filed by the contractor against two orders passed by the Court below in O.P. Nos. 81 and 82 of 1980. The said O.Ps. were filed by the contractor under Section 8 (2) of the ARBITRATION ACT, 1940, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Each of the O.Ps. related to a different contract but the question involved being the same I will refer to the facts in O.P. No. 82 of 1980 out of which C.R.P, No, 2113 of 1982 arises,

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 in the O.P. filed a counter in the lower Court stating that the petitioner committed breach of contract, that therefore action was taken under Clause 61 of the preliminary specification to the A.P.D.S.S. by cancelling the contract by notice dated 31-5-1976, that thereafter the petitioner wrote a letter dated 15-10-1977 which was served on the respondents on 1-5-1978. It is further contended in the counter that all disputes arising between the parties must be decided only by the Superintending Engineer, Cuddapah as specified in the agreement, that instructions have been issued to the Chief Engineers that the officer occupying the post of Superintending Engineer and nominated as Arbitrator, if found to have misconducted, the said officer should not be entrusted with arbitration work. It was further stated that the petitioner had not produced any document to show that the 3rd Respondent should not be entrusted with arbitration work. The allegation that the 3rd respondent was under threat of disciplinary action by the Government is denied. It is stated that the 3rd respondent had not yet entered into arbitration and therefore the allegation that the 3rd respondent is under fear of threat is absolutely unfounded. The 3rd respondent, it was averred, was working as Superintending Engineer, Cuddapah and had been performing his duties as such and therefore the allegation that he was "incapable" of acting as an arbitrator within Section 8 of the Act cannot be accepted. It was also stated that the fact that disciplinary action may be taken in future against the 3rd respondent is no ground for appointing another person as an arbitrator in his place. The receipt of the notice dated 24-1-1980 is not denied but it is stated that there is no vacancy and that the arbitrator already nominated under that agreement is available for performing the duties and that therefore this petition should be dismissed.