O‘zbekiston respublikasida ma’muriy protseduralarni takomillashtirish

parties must routinely be provided with attorneys» (Ernest Gellhorn, Ronald M.Levin 
«Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell» fifth edition. Thomson/West, 2006. 
234-236 p). 
 
4.17-ilova 
«4. An impartial decisionmaker. «[O]f course, an impartial decision maker is 
essential» to an adjudication that comports with due process… There are several 
kinds of disqualifying bias. For example, an agency official should be disqualified 
from sitting in an adjudicatory proceeding if his service as an advocate at an earlier 
stage of the controversy, or his overt comments, suggest that he may have prejudged 
facts that will be at issue in the case… But even in the absence of direct evidence 
about a particular officeholder’s experience or views, courts will sometimes discern 
an unacceptable risk of bias when an adjudicator has strong incentives to decide the 
case on grounds other than the merits. For example, one well established ground for 
disqualification os the is the administrator’s personal financial stake in the outcome… 
Another type of indirect financial stake which may require disqualification of the 
decisionmaker arises when the administrator is affiliated with a business and has the 
power to eliminate or restrict competition through his official acts. This situation 
frequently arises in state occupational licensing systems, where the licensing boards 
are customarily made up of individuals who practice in the regulated industry… In 
many agencies which adjudicate violations of regulatory statutes and regulations, the 

---

147 
agencyheads who will make the final decision also make the preliminary 
determination to initiate the proceeding by voting to issue a complaint. In doing so, 
they may examine evidence gathered by the staff for the purpose of determining 
whether they have «reason to believe» a violation has occurred. This practice has 
long been considered constitutional. See, e.g., FTC v. Cement Inst., 333 U.S. 683 
(1948). Due process does not require a strict «separation of functions» between 
prosecuting and decisionmaking officials, and «mere exposure to evidence presented 
in nonadversary investigative procedures is insufficient in itself» to overcome the 
presumption that the official will decide impartially. Withrow v.Larkin,421 U.S. 35 
(1975) (permitting members of state board of medical examiners to exercise multiple 
functions).However, this due process doctrine has its critics» (Ernest Gellhorn, 
Ronald M.Levin «Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell» fifth edition. 
Thomson/West, 2006. 237-240 p). 
4.18-ilova 
«5. Findings and conclusions. Administrative law sets great store by reasoned 
findings accompanying agency decisions, and this attitude is reflected in due process 
doctrine. In a formal adjudication governed by the APA, the agency’s decision must 
include a statement of «findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on 
all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record». 5 U.S.C.A