K. SRINIVAS Vs. SECRETARY, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the disciplinary proceeding and to absorb the Petitioner in the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 20th October, 1989 and to publish a fresh gradation list quashing the promotion of Opposite Party No. 2 being in contravention of the direction issued by this Court in OJC No. 13570 of 1999 and many other reliefs.

(2.) THE misc. case has been filed submitting that Petitioner has made attempts to get the case listed for speedy disposal as it is taking much time and is not being listed out of turn. In the application he has made prayer to transfer the matter from a particular Bench and to list it before another Bench. Thus, the question does arise as to whether such a prayer is permissible.

(3.) THOUGH the Petitioner has not complained anything against any Hon'ble Judge but asking the Court not to list the matter before a "particular Bench" amounts impliedly leveling allegations of mala fide and bias against a particular Hon'ble Judge. There may be a case where allegations may be made against the Judge of being bias, prejudice at any stage of the proceedings and there may be some substance in it or may be made to avoid the said Bench if a party apprehends that the Judgment may be delivered against him. Such an opinion may be formed by the party taking into consideration the opinion expressed by the Court during the course of argument. Different standard of proof is required from that of the administrative authority. The Correct legal position in this regard has been that unless a prior policy statement shows a final and irrevocable decision and foreclosing of the mind of the authority as to the merits of the case before it, it would not operate as a disqualification and there cannot be a case of malice or bias. In case such statements are to disable an official from acting as an adjudicatory authority on the ground of bias, then it will be disastrous to the system as a whole for the reason that a Judge has no interest personally in the outcome of the controversy and is still willing and ready to hear the arguments and reconsider the point of law even if it had already been settled, otherwise the question of providing for the remedy of review could not have arisen. Thus, so long as adjudicator's mind is irrevocably closed and the opinion expressed by him is free from any extraneous consideration, there is no question of entertaining the apprehension of the party, even though his predisposition to certain issues is known to the parties.