Delhi High Court Upholds Suspension Of Retd. Judge MM Dhonchak From Post Of DRT Presiding Officer
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has upheld an order extending the suspension of Retired Decide Man Mohan Dhonchak from the put up of Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh. The Excessive Court docket took be aware of the truth that the acts had been acknowledged to be prejudicial to the general public curiosity.
The Attraction earlier than the Excessive Court docket was filed in opposition to the Judgment whereby the petition impugning the second order of extension of suspension of the appellant from the put up of Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh, was dismissed as being devoid of benefit.
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar stated, “The character of the fees on which the appellant is being proceeded in opposition to is grave and his acts are acknowledged to be prejudicial to the general public curiosity. Varied orders of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket have additionally been dropped at our discover, which make scathing feedback on the conduct of the appellant in his capability because the Presiding Officer of the DRT.”
The Appellant appeared in particular person whereas CGSC Pratima N. Lakra represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant, a retired judicial officer, was appointed because the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh, on February 20, 2022. It was claimed that a number of complaints had been acquired from the DRT Bar Affiliation in opposition to the appellant, citing judicial impropriety. It was alleged that as an alternative of granting adjournments, a number of issues had been proceeded with ex parte and dismissed by the appellant. The DRT Bar Affiliation then filed a Writ Petition earlier than the Excessive Court docket of Punjab and Haryana in opposition to the orders handed by the appellant. The Excessive Court docket, whereas deprecating the attorneys for happening strike, restrained the appellant from passing any antagonistic orders.
The appellant filed an SLP, and the Apex Court docket permitted the appellant to proceed additional with the listening to of the issues earlier than him and resolve the identical on deserves. The Court docket additionally left the matter to the Chairman of the DRT/DRAT to take an applicable choice independently. The Chairperson opined that the appellant was not behaving correctly with the members of the Bar and adjourning the circumstances to the 12 months 2026, past his tenure, which was delaying the restoration of the quantity from debtors. Subsequently, a Cost Sheet was issued, and the Suspension Evaluate Committee really useful the extension of the suspension of the appellant. The appellant filed a Petition difficult the Order extending his suspension which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Excessive Court docket.
Reasoning
The Bench famous that the character of the fees on which the appellant was being proceeded in opposition to was grave and his acts had been acknowledged to be prejudicial to the general public curiosity. Reference was made to numerous orders of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket which made scathing feedback on the conduct of the appellant in his capability because the Presiding Officer of the DRT.
As per the Bench, there was adequate materials earlier than the competent authority to proceed with the suspension of the appellant. “It should, due to this fact, be for the Competent Authority to take requisite steps to additionally be sure that the litigants don’t undergo because of the suspension of the appellant and the DRT capabilities to discharge its duties”, the Bench stated.
Although the Bench was in prima facie settlement with the submission of the appellant, that the explanations for continuation of his suspension as contained within the sealed cowl ought to have been disclosed to him in absence of any declare for privilege, on the similar time, the explanations for the similar weren’t solely disclosed within the reply affidavit of the respondent, however had been additionally discernable from the whole details as offered earlier than the Single Decide. The Bench additionally didn’t discover any benefit within the submission of bias.
Thus, discovering no benefit within the attraction, the Bench dismissed the identical.
Trigger Title: M M Dhonchak v. Union of India (Impartial Quotation: 2025:DHC:5056-DB)
Look
Appellant: In particular person
Respondent: CGSC Pratima N. Lakra, Advocates Chandan Prajapati, GP Pinky Pawar
