Full Judgment
P.K. Balasubramanyan, CJ.
1. The revision petitioners, the State of Jharkhand and its officers have filed this revision challenging the order of the Court below dismissing the application filed by them under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondent No. 2 therein, while he was in service, had been appointed as the Arbitrator in his capacity as the Chief Engineer. While proceeding with the arbitration, he appears to have claimed fees as Arbitrator from the State. He collected it on the assertion that even though he was an employee of the State he was entitled to collect the arbitration fee also. The State objected to his continuing with the arbitration proceedings on the ground that he has misconducted himself because of his claiming arbitration fees while he was in service and sought his removal. The State also expressed an apprehension that in view of the stand adopted by the State, the Arbitrator would not be fair. The Arbitrator himself having rejected the application made under Section 14(1) of the Act, the Court below was moved. The State reiterated its contention. Before the Court below, respondent No. 2 offered to re-deposit the amount collected as fee. When he was moved under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act though he rejected the application, he had informed the Government that he was willing to refund the amount he had withdrawn. Counsel submits that even though he offered to refund the amount, he did not return the amount. The Court below took the view that the facts established, do not justify the removal of the Arbitrator, especially when there was the direction by the High Court to complete the arbitration by the end of April, 2003 and since the Arbitrator had proceeded with the work to a considerable extent. The Court below was not impressed with the argument that the conduct of the Arbitrator in claiming fees from the Government had disqualified him to continue as the Arbitrator.
2. Learned counsel reiterated the contention raised before the Court below and expressed the apprehension about the fairness of the award that may be passed in view of the incident. According to me the Court below was justified in taking the view that a ground for removal of the arbitrator has not been made out. The Court below also noticed that the Arbitrator was willing to re-deposit the amount drawn by him as fees for arbitration. But the Court below did not insist on the amount being re-deposited. In this situation, I think that what is necessary is to direct the arbitrator to refund forthwith the amount and thereafter to proceed with the arbitration proceeding. The Arbitrator himself must take care to ensure that a fair award is passed, especially in view of the contention on behalf of the State that in view of this controversy, the Arbitrator may pass an Award just to spite the State. The Arbitrator shall ensure that the State is not given any such an opportunity to argue such a point if and when he passes the award and there is a challenge to it. But then, the Arbitrator has to pass a speaking award and the Court when (sic) to do so can always see whether it is fair and whether any bias is discernible.
3. While therefore declining to interfere, I direct the Arbitrator to refund the amount drawn by him towards the arbitration fee while in service and thereafter to proceed with the arbitration. He is directed to ensure that no room is given for any complaint that he was not fair while conducting the proceeding or in passing the award.
4. In view of the fact that I have dismissed the revision itself, there is no need to pass a separate order on the petition for condoning the delay.