'Acts Stated To Be Prejudicial To Public Interest': Delhi High Court Upholds Suspension Of Retd. Judge MM Dhonchak From Post Of DRT Presiding Officer

The Appeal before the High Court was filed against the Judgment whereby the petition impugning the second order of extension of suspension of the appellant from the post of Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh, was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar said, “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. 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.”

The Appellant appeared in person while CGSC Pratima N. Lakra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant, a retired judicial officer, was appointed as the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh, on February 20, 2022. It was claimed that multiple complaints were received from the DRT Bar Association against the appellant, citing judicial impropriety. It was alleged that instead of granting adjournments, several matters were proceeded with ex parte and dismissed by the appellant. The DRT Bar Association then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the orders passed by the appellant. The High Court, while deprecating the lawyers for going on strike, restrained the appellant from passing any adverse orders.

The appellant filed an SLP, and the Apex Court permitted the appellant to proceed further with the hearing of the matters before him and decide the same on merits. The Court also left the matter to the Chairman of the DRT/DRAT to take an appropriate decision independently. The Chairperson opined that the appellant was not behaving properly with the members of the Bar and adjourning the cases to the year 2026, beyond his tenure, which was delaying the recovery of the amount from borrowers. Subsequently, a Charge Sheet was issued, and the Suspension Review Committee recommended the extension of the suspension of the appellant. The appellant filed a Petition challenging the Order extending his suspension which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the nature of the charges on which the appellant was being proceeded against was grave and his acts were stated to be prejudicial to the public interest. Reference was made to various orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which made scathing comments on the conduct of the appellant in his capacity as the Presiding Officer of the DRT.

As per the Bench, 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 Bench said.

Though the Bench was in prima facie agreement with the submission of the appellant, that the reasons for continuation of his suspension as contained in the sealed cover should have been disclosed to him in absence of any claim for privilege, at the same time, the reasons for the same were not only disclosed in the reply affidavit of the respondent, but were also discernable from the entire facts as presented before the Single Judge. The Bench also did not find any merit in the submission of bias.

Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: M M Dhonchak v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5056-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: In person

Respondent: CGSC Pratima N. Lakra, Advocates Chandan Prajapati, GP Pinky Pawar

Click here to read/download Order