DRT presiding officer suspension: Delhi HC dismisses challenge to extension of suspension

Hindustan Times

15 hours ago

Dismissing an appeal by under-suspension presiding officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-II, Chandigarh, MM Dhonchak, challenging an order of single judge of Delhi high court (HC) which dismissed his plea regarding extension of his suspension, a division bench has held that the nature of the charges on which the appellant was being proceeded against were grave and his acts are stated to be prejudicial to the public interest. A division bench of Delhi HC comprising justice Navin Chawla and justice Renu Bhatnagar in its July 1 order said that the procedure as laid down in Rule 9 of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, has been followed by the Union government while initiating inquiry against Dhonchak. (File)
Dhonchak, a former Haryana judicial officer, had challenged the dismissal of his petition by the March 3, 2025, single judge order regarding extension of his suspension on November 5, 2024 (as presiding officer, DRT-II). The single judge had dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit.
A division bench of Delhi HC comprising justice Navin Chawla and justice Renu Bhatnagar in its July 1 order said that the procedure as laid down in Rule 9 of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, has been followed by the Union government while initiating inquiry against Dhonchak. The procedure for extension of suspension as laid down under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules,1965, has also been duly followed by the competent authority while passing the extension order.
'Various orders of the Punjab and Haryana high court have also been brought to our notice, which make scathing comments on the conduct of the appellant in his capacity as the presiding officer of the DRT. Tested on the above principles of law governing the scrutiny of an order of suspension or its continuation, no fault can be found in the order extending the suspension of the appellant. As far as the plea of the appellant that his suspension is harming the functioning of the DRT, it is for the competent authority (Union government) to weigh between the continued suspension of the appellant and the effect it may have on the functioning of the DRT,'' the bench said.
The HC observed that in the present case, it is sufficient to state that there was sufficient material before the competent authority to continue with the suspension of the appellant. It will, therefore, be for the competent authority to take requisite steps to also ensure that the litigants do not suffer due to the suspension of the appellant and the DRT functions to discharge its duties, the HC said.
The Union government had told the HC that multiple complaints were received from the DRT Bar Association against the appellant citing judicial impropriety. These complaints were duly referred to the chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi, for appropriate consideration. During the pendency of the consideration of the said complaints, members of the DRT Bar Association abstained from appearing before the appellant in protest.
The DRAT chairperson submitted a July 2023 preliminary report stating that the appellant was not behaving properly with the members of the Bar and prima facie defeated the very purpose of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, by adjourning the cases to 2026, beyond his tenure. The same in turn was delaying the recovery of amount from borrowers and was adversely affecting the economic health of the country.
The Union government then placed the matter before the Search Cum Selection Committee (SCSC) headed by Supreme Court judge which in August 2023 decided that an inquiry against the appellant be conducted by a former chief justice of a high court in accordance with Rule 9(3) of the Tribunal (Condition of Service) Rules, 2021. Accordingly, former chief justice of Jharkhand high court, justice Virender Singh, was appointed as the inquiry officer. The SCSC, in its meeting held on November 22, 2023, also recommended suspension of the appellant and he was placed under suspension on February 13, 2024. The suspension was extended twice.