Chandigarh DRT Presiding Officer Challenges Suspension Extension in Delhi High Court, Cites Unjust Harassment

Mr. M.M. Dhonchak, Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-2, Chandigarh, has filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, challenging the judgment of a Single Judge that upheld the Union of India's decision to extend his suspension for another 180 days, effective from November 5, 2024.

In his appeal, Dhonchak contended that the Single Judge failed to consider that the allegations against him primarily revolved around purported rude behavior towards advocates. However, the charge lacked specifics, including details of the alleged misconduct, the individuals involved, and any witnesses to the incident. Additionally, another charge against him, alleging that he slowed down debt recovery, was contradicted by official records, which showed that his case disposal rate exceeded that of seven tribunals combined.

Dhonchak asserted that he was being unfairly targeted and penalized for upholding judicial discipline by refusing to yield to tribunal boycotts and strikes by certain advocates. He further urged the court to consider his limited remaining tenure, which expires on February 21, 2026, and the backlog of nearly 10,000 pending cases.

The appellant argued that the extension of his suspension until May 8, 2025, was illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the government to reinstate him as Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Chandigarh. However, the Single Judge dismissed his petition on March 3, 2025, without addressing the factual aspects of the case or providing a speaking order.

Dhonchak emphasized that the court had sought written submissions confined to three pages, yet the impugned judgment failed to consider or even acknowledge these arguments. He cited Supreme Court precedents that mandate reasoned judgments as a fundamental principle of natural justice. Moreover, he pointed out that the counter affidavit filed by the respondent implicitly admitted certain claims made in his appeal, yet these admissions were not reflected in the judgment.

Additionally, he highlighted procedural discrepancies, arguing that the written submissions filed by the respondent deviated from its own counter affidavit. Despite the court order dated February 10, 2025, recording that Dhonchak had personally argued his case for about half an hour, the judgment did not mention even a trace of his submissions. In light of these omissions, Dhonchak urged the Division Bench to set aside the impugned judgment and grant him relief.