Dhonchak moves Delhi HC Division Bench, flags ‘stoic silence’ on core issues in suspension case

Presiding Officer of DRT-2 Chandigarh, MM Dhonchak, has questioned the very foundation of his suspension and the subsequent extension by assailing the Single Bench judgment before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. He has alleged that the judgment not only ignored his principal grounds but also failed to address crucial questions of competency, jurisdiction, legality of the suspension, and non-consideration of material pleadings.

Among other things, Dhonchak has argued that none of the allegations — rude behaviour, slowing down recoveries, or granting long adjournments — stand scrutiny, especially when his disposal exceeded the combined disposal of seven other similarly placed Presiding Officers across 39 DRTs, a fact supported by the respondent’s own record. He has asserted that the Single Judge “ducked” this decisive material despite its centrality to the charge that he slowed down the pace of debt recovery.

Dhonchak, through counsel Satyavan Kudalwal, has also attacked the very basis of the first charge — rude behavior — terming it an unsubstantiated allegation unsupported by even a single instance, detail, complainant, or witness. He noted that the Tribunal was operating in continuous hybrid mode for eight months and all proceedings were openly recordable, yet “not a single video clip” surfaced from those “baying for his blood”. He termed the charge a “witch-hunt”.

Challenging the second charge on adjournments, he submitted that granting short dates would have turned the Tribunal into a “Tareekh-pe-Tareekh” forum given staff limitations and an unworkable caseload. He pointed out that the presiding officer of DRT-1 himself fixed an unmanageable load of 335 cases a day, in addition to 125 cases of his own Tribunal, creating what he described as “a complete mess” and “play to the gallery”, which he sought to avoid.

A substantial part of the appeal is devoted to the competency question — who could suspend him, extend the suspension, or issue the chargesheet. Dhonchak argues that since he was appointed by the President of India, no order of suspension, extension, or chargesheet could stand unless approved by the President, yet none of the files were ever sent for Presidential approval. He also pointed out that the Chairperson of DRAT, Delhi, had himself stated he was not competent to conduct preliminary scrutiny, while the suspension order attributes scrutiny to DFS. Despite this, the judgment, according to him, incorrectly records that the scrutiny was done by the DRAT Chairperson.

He has also asserted that each extension of suspension must have distinct grounds, and the use of the same grounds for multiple extensions renders the action illegal, creating a situation where a suspension could continue “for all times to come”.

He has further alleged non-consideration of his detailed written arguments — running into dozens of pages across multiple dates — which, he says, were completely ignored. He argues that the omission caused serious prejudice, especially when these arguments set out his disposal figures, the illegality of the suspension, the bar boycott that followed his refusal to succumb to pressure, the bias within the Search-cum-Selection Committee, and the legal doctrines of estoppel and jurisdiction, all of which he says were never dealt with.

He also contended that the Single Judge wrongly treated interim orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as final, and ignored the fact that three SLPs against him were not dismissed on merits but in limine without speaking orders. He asserted that his objections to alleged flaws in the Supreme Court’s 12 May 2023 order were not even referred to.

Dhonchak submitted that the judgment failed even to advert to his pleadings explaining why long adjournments were legally permissible, why 20,000 matters beyond his tenure required adjournment, the startling disparity in SA disposals between him and other Presiding Officers, and his stand that a fearless judicial officer cannot be penalised merely because he refused to succumb to a Bar boycott.

He has also alleged that the judgment was built partly on an affidavit that the Single Judge himself acknowledged as irrelevant. He argued that the reliance on such material vitiates the entire decision.

Terming the judgment as one that reproduces orders and extracts from the preliminary inquiry report without addressing the “real controversy”, Dhonchak has submitted that the failure to determine competency, legality and procedural fairness has caused gross prejudice and renders the judgment unsustainable.

His appeal asserts that the impugned decision proceeds as if he consented to findings against him, completely ignoring his written submissions pointing out “legal, factual and procedural infirmities” in both the suspension and its extension.

The Division Bench will now examine these allegations of non-consideration, jurisdictional error, competency, and suppression of decisive material.