Delhi High Court Upholds Suspension Of DRT Judge | Says Misconduct Allegations Grave | No Right To Continue In Judicial Office Pending Inquiry
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed an appeal challenging the continuation of suspension of a Debts Recovery Tribunal Presiding Officer. The Bench held that the suspension was legally justified and supported by material evidence. The Court directed that the appeal challenging the Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition against the extension of suspension be rejected, with no relief granted to the appellant.
The Bench found no irregularity in the suspension process and affirmed that the inquiry into allegations of misconduct was underway following due procedure. The judgment clarified that the disciplinary authorities had exercised their administrative discretion in line with statutory rules. It stated that there was sufficient material to support the extension of the suspension.
While acknowledging the appellant's submissions on procedural irregularities, the Division Bench concluded that the competent authority's decisions were not arbitrary or perverse. The judgment stated that the appellant's continuation in office would be detrimental to the inquiry process. Consequently, the appeal and pending applications were dismissed without costs.
The appellant, a retired judicial officer, was appointed as Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT-II), Chandigarh on 20.02.2022. Subsequently, multiple complaints were filed by the DRT Bar Association alleging judicial impropriety, including the claim that he proceeded ex parte and dismissed matters instead of granting adjournments during a lawyers' protest. These complaints were forwarded to the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi, for consideration.
On 27.10.2022, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while restraining the Bar from striking, also directed the appellant not to pass adverse orders. The appellant challenged this directive before the Supreme Court, which, on 02.12.2022, modified the order to allow him to hear cases on merits. The apex court urged both the Bar and the Presiding Officer to maintain a cordial atmosphere and avoid unnecessary confrontation.
On 12.12.2022, the Supreme Court maintained the interim order and authorized the Chairperson of the DRAT to assess the complaints independently. The DRAT Chairperson submitted a preliminary report dated 10.07.2023 citing inappropriate behavior by the appellant and stating that he adjourned cases beyond his tenure to 2026, affecting the economic health of the country.
Based on this report, the government placed the matter before the Search Cum Selection Committee (SCSC), headed by a Supreme Court judge. On 24.08.2023, the SCSC recommended a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 9(3) of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, to be conducted by a retired Chief Justice. Accordingly, Justice Virender Singh, former Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court, was appointed as Inquiry Officer.
On 22.11.2023, the SCSC recommended the appellant's suspension. By order dated 13.02.2024, the appellant was suspended under Rule 16 of the Tribunal Rules read with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
A charge sheet dated 26.02.2024 was issued with the Finance Minister's approval. The appellant challenged the impartiality of the Inquiry Officer and requested his replacement, which was denied. However, Justice Singh voluntarily recused himself on 29.05.2024, causing procedural delays. Meanwhile, the Suspension Review Committee (SRC) met on 26.04.2024 and recommended extending the suspension. The suspension was extended until 09.11.2024 and again until 08.05.2025.
The appellant filed writ petitions against the original suspension and the first extension, which are still pending. He also filed W.P.(C) 15933/2024 challenging the second extension order dated 05.11.2024, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The present appeal was filed against that dismissal.
The appellant, appearing in person, contended that he was penalized for professional diligence and high disposal rates, and the Bar's complaints were retaliatory. He argued that his continued suspension stalled DRT operations and violated public interest. He also alleged bias in the Inquiry Officer's appointment and claimed violation of natural justice as sealed cover material was not shared.
The respondent, represented by learned counsel, opposed the appeal citing limited judicial review over preventive suspensions. They submitted that the disciplinary authority's actions were based on verifiable records including complaints, official notings, and judicial conduct reports. The suspension was deemed necessary for preserving inquiry integrity.
The respondent contended that the appellant himself delayed proceedings by objecting to the Inquiry Officer. They stated that serious charges of judicial misconduct warranted preventive suspension. Relying on precedents, it was argued that suspension during inquiry is an administrative measure, not punitive.
The Bench stated: "At the outset, we would note the law applicable to the judicial review of an order of suspension and its continuation."
Referring to State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, the Court recorded: "It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry... the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct... Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties."
The Court also cited Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal: "Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered... Whether the employee should or should not continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary authority concerned."
Regarding the specific charges, the Court noted that the inquiry was based on serious allegations of misconduct, including adjourning matters to 2026 and discourteous behaviour toward the Bar. The Bench remarked: "The nature of the charges on which the appellant is being proceeded against is grave and his acts are stated to be prejudicial to the public interest."
It further stated: "The procedure as laid down in Rule 9 of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, has been followed... Additionally, the procedure for extension of suspension as laid down under Rule 10... has also been duly followed by the competent authority."
Addressing the appellant's contention that his suspension affected DRT functioning, the Bench said: "It is for the competent authority to weigh between the continued suspension of the appellant and the effect it may have on the functioning of the DRT."
On allegations of procedural unfairness, the Bench observed: "We are in prima facie agreement with the submission... that the reasons for continuation of his suspension... should have been disclosed to him in absence of any claim for privilege... For the said reasons alone, the Impugned Judgement cannot be faulted."
The Bench also considered contentions regarding a Punjab and Haryana High Court order. It quoted the relevant observations: "...the working thereof is erratic... as a result of the Presiding Officer concerned, at his own whims... is undertaking the ill exercise of making the hybrid system with video and audio picture... dysfunctional."
On allegations of bias due to prior judicial involvement of the SCSC Chairperson, the Court said: "We again do not find any merit in the same."
The Court concluded: "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."
It added: "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 Court noted: "We find no merit in the present appeal. The same, along with the pending application, is dismissed."
No costs were awarded: "There shall be no order as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: M.M. Dhonchak, in person
For the Respondents: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocate & Ms. Pinky Pawar, GP
Case Title: M.M. Dhonchak v. Union of India
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5056-DB
Case Number: LPA 204/2025
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar
