Chandigarh debts recovery tribunal officer challenges suspension extension in Delhi High Court
MM Dhonchak, Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-2, Chandigarh, has approached the Division Bench of Delhi High Court against the judgment of a Single Judge, challenging the Union of India's order dated November 5, 2024, extending his suspension for another 180 days.
In his appeal, he submitted that the Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the case against the appellant hinged upon the charge of alleged rude behaviour towards the advocates.
Surprisingly, there was a stoic silence with regard to the details of the said rude behaviour, the victims of the same, its timing, and witnesses in whose presence it allegedly took place.
The other trumped-up charge was about slowing down the pace of recovery of debts. It was notwithstanding that the disposal of the cases by the appellant, as per the very record of the respondent itself, was more than that of seven Tribunals put together.
In the face of the irrefutable and incontrovertible facts, it simply passes comprehension as to how the appellant, against whose immaculate integrity there is no trace of any question mark, could be allowed to be hounded down, harassed, and punished for having discharged his duty with the fullest commitment and courage the way a judge should, merely for saying "no" to strikes or boycotts of the Tribunal by a bunch of advocates.
The appellant also asked the court to take note of his remaining short tenure, which was akin to a flash in the pan.
Elaborating, he added that the tenure was expiring on February 21, 2026. He added that approximately 10,000 cases were left unattended.
Dhonchak added that the suspension period had further been extended for another 180 days, i.e., up to May 8, illegally, illogically, arbitrarily, and unreasonably as well as to seek issuance of the Writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent to allow the Appellant to continue in the post of Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2025, without appreciating the factual matrix of the case and without passing a speaking order.
Dhonchak highlighted: “Valid and irrefutable points mentioned in the written arguments confined to three pages sought by the Hon'ble Court itself were not adverted to even cursorily in the impugned judgment and thus, out and out, it is not a speaking/reasoned judgment which is liable to be set aside on this sole score. The Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that even in the absence of a statutory requirement, there is an obligation to record reasons and convey the same to the party concerned as an element of natural justice.”
The Appellant asserted that the incontrovertible grounds in the pleadings assailing the impugned order which were impliedly admitted by the respondent in the counter affidavit, were not even cursorily adverted to in the impugned judgment and thus, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be a reasoned/speaking judgment which is liable to be set aside on this sole score. Not only this, there was a complete admission of the stance of the appellant in the pleadings by necessary implication.
The learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent were not in line with the case set up by the respondent in the counter affidavit. Moreover, it was mentioned clearly in the order dated 10.02.2025 that the appellant had advanced arguments in person, but even a trace of the arguments advanced by the appellant for a period of about half an hour has been mentioned.
