DRT Presiding Officer Moves Supreme Court Against Adverse Observations Of P&H High Court

In the present Special Leave Petition, the Officer has claimed that the impugned order passed by the High Court (23.03.2023) has a devastating effect on his career, credibility and reputation and it virtually proposes his suspension or transfer from the present place of posting. On perusal of some of the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that he had dismissed an application in his usual perfunctory manner; he is insensitive towards people who have taken loans and have outstanding due to various reasons, including deaths that took place during the pandemic; his responsibility level is far below the standards expected from one who has retired as a District Judge. The High Court has also indicated that the failure of the Presiding Officer in discharging his judicial duties has constrained the High Court to step in and safeguard the interest of the litigants.

In October, 2022, the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association had approached the High Court in a writ petition alleging that the same Presiding Officer had harassed counsels appearing both for financial institutions and borrowers. Protesting against the said officer the Bar Association had also gone on a strike on 26th October, 2022 and refrained from appearing before the said Presiding Officer. Though the High Court deprecated the conduct of the Bar Association for going on a strike, it did pass an interim order to prevent ‘wholesale dismissal’ of cases pending before him. Noting ‘serious allegations’ against the Officer and his ‘severely strained’ relationship with the Bar Association, a Division Bench of the High Court had restrained him passing any adverse orders in any of the cases pending before him until 30th November, 2022.

Challenging that direction of the High Court, Mr. M.M. Dhonchak, the concerned Presiding Officer, had filed an SLP before the Apex Court in November last year. He had contended that it is well settled law that the Bar Association has no authority to discuss the conduct of a Judge in its meeting. Further, he had argued that advocates cannot resort to strike/boycott and a Bar Association cannot pass a resolution to support the strike/boycott of the Court work. He had submitted that he has a reputation of being an honest and upright judge after his years of service as a District Judge and that the High Court's order sends a message that the judicial officers should be subservient to the "arm-twisting" tactics adopted by the Bar.

On 02.12.2022, the Supreme Court had observed that an order retraining a judicial member from adjudicating matters is not sustainable in law. In the view of the same, the Apex Court modified the High Court’s order and permitted Mr. Dhonchak to proceed with hearing matters before him on merits. It was advised that being a part of the justice delivery system both the Bar and the Bench maintain cordial atmosphere. On 12th December, 2022, the Apex Court had disposed of the matter asking the Chairperson of DRT to take an appropriate decision independently.

A second round of litigation is now being initiated pursuant to the allegedly scathing observations made by the High Court in its order dated 23.03.2023 (impugned order). Mr. Dhonchak has contended that the High Court erred in entertaining the Bar Association’s writ petition which is not maintainable in law. The petition raises issues with respect to the previous order wherein he was completely restrained by the High Court from deciding matters on merit. The petition also emphasises that the Bar Association cannot resort to strike/boycott of court work and bring the working of the Court to a standstill. The present petition argues that the impugned order has the effect of legitimising the boycott of the Tribunal, which would not only affect the independent functioning of the Tribunal but also that of the district judiciary. It is submitted that the petitioner has been made a respondent in the petition before the High Court in his personal capacity even though he has not done anything in his personal capacity and has been discharging his duties in official capacity. The petition alleges that the impugned order has attempted to circumvent the order passed by the Apex Court on 12th December, 2022.