Delhi High Court Issues Notice On DRT Presiding Officer's Plea Challenging Suspension Due To Allegedly Long Adjournments, Rude Behaviour

The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea moved by MM Dhonchak, Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh, challenging his suspension, claiming that the action is illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela sought a response from the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance, department of financial services, within four weeks.

Dhonchak has challenged the order issued by the Central Government on February 13 suspending him as well as the chargesheet filed against him on February 26. 

It is his case that the suspension and chargesheet are unlawful and illegal and that the impugned order is passed without any application of mind and appreciating legal and factual matrix of the case.

The charge against the presiding officer is with regard to the long adjournments of the cases, thereby slowing down the pace of the recovery of debts. He has also been charged with having rude behaviour towards lawyers.

Appearing in person, Dhonchak contended that despite his performance being far more superior to the other Presiding Officers of DRTs throughout India, he has been accused of slowing down the recovery of debts.

He submitted that the issuance of the suspension order as also the chargesheet were without any basis, either legal or factual.

It was contended that he has been accused of misbehaving with the advocates appearing before him without any further basis and that not even a single shred of document or a statement or a complaint of any effected party was placed on record by the Union Government before issuing the chargesheet.

“Issue notice…. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to petitioner. Rejoinder, thereto if any, be filed within four weeks, thereafter, with an advance copy to learned counsel for the respondent,” the court said.

The matter will now be heard on July 24.

In his plea, the presiding officer has submitted that it is a classic case of complete non-application of mind and also 'putting the cart before the horse', violating the well-entrenched principles of natural justice.

“Not only in the disposal of the number of cases, even in the matter of uploading of the cases on the same day, the petitioners is certainly at No. 1,” the plea states.

It adds there is no detail of the alleged rude behaviour by the presiding officer.

Dhonchak has also said that there is a stoic silence of the Centre with regard to the details of rude behavior, any victim, its timing and witnesses in whose presence the alleged incident took place.

“The chargesheet was served upon the petitioner after 6 months and 2 days of the approval of the inquiry against him. As per well settled principle of service/administrative jurisprudence, an inquiry can be ordered against an officer only after his reply to the chargesheet is found and pronounced as unsatisfactory by the Punishing Authority. Not only this, even the said pronouncement has to be by way of a speaking/reasoned order disclosing therein as to why the same was/is unsatisfactory,” the plea states.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Tanuj, Mr. Mohit Siwarch, Mr. Garurav and Mr. Abhubhav, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Tasha Yasin, Advocate

Title: M M DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

Click here to read order