https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156376 A departmental proceeding was held vitiated because the presiding officer became a witness on material facts, creating patent bias and breach of natural justice. The text also states that the existence of departmental appeal and revision does not automatically bar certiorari, since exhaustion of alternative remedies is a discretionary rule and writ jurisdiction may still be exercised where the process is tainted by bias or excess of jurisdiction. However, Article 226 was said not to apply retrospectively to reopen dismissal and appellate orders made before the Constitution merely because a later revisional order was passed after its commencement. The majority therefore denied writ relief in relation to the pre-Constitution orders. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2014 18:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156376 A departmental proceeding was held vitiated because the presiding officer became a witness on material facts, creating patent bias and breach of natural justice. The text also states that the existence of departmental appeal and revision does not automatically bar certiorari, since exhaustion of alternative remedies is a discretionary rule and writ jurisdiction may still be exercised where the process is tainted by bias or excess of jurisdiction. However, Article 226 was said not to apply retrospectively to reopen dismissal and appellate orders made before the Constitution merely because a later revisional order was passed after its commencement. The majority therefore denied writ relief in relation to the pre-Constitution orders. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156376