Ex-DRT-2 presiding officer challenges removal, calls order 'non-speaking', 'ante-timed', 'unconstitutional'
The petitioner alleges the order was passed without supplying the inquiry report or granting him any opportunity of hearing
A former District and Sessions Judge, who later headed the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT-2), Chandigarh, has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging his removal from office. Among other things, Dr MM Dhonchak has alleged that the Union Government passed a ‘non-speaking’, ‘ante-timed’ and ‘unconstitutional order’.
Dr Dhonchak alleged in his petition that the order was passed without supplying the inquiry report or granting him any opportunity of hearing in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and settled principles of natural justice.
Appointed as Presiding Officer on February 20, 2022, Dr Dhonchak has sought quashing of the removal order dated November 18, 2025, and a direction permitting him to continue in office. He has also prayed for interim stay of the impugned order.
Inquiry before charge sheet, prolonged suspension
Tracing his three-and-a-half-decade judicial career — as Civil Judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge, District and Sessions Judge in Haryana, besides four stints in the High Court Registry — the petitioner states that after superannuation as Gurugram District and Sessions Judge on March 31, 2021, he was appointed to head DRT-2 for a four-year tenure.
He contends that approval for inquiry was granted on August 24, 2023, allegedly even before issuance of a charge sheet, and the order directing inquiry was never communicated to him. He learnt of the proceedings only upon being placed under suspension on February 13, 2024. A formal charge sheet followed on February 26, 2024 — about six months after ordering of the inquiry.
His suspension, Dr Dhonchak states, was successively extended on May 13, 2024; November 5, 2024; May 6, 2025; and November 3, 2025, up to February 24, 2026. He alleges that despite prolonged suspension, subsistence allowance was “stoically” retained at 50 per cent without reasons and not enhanced to 75 per cent as required.
He further details multiple representations seeking change of the inquiry officer, alleging misconduct during proceedings. These, he says, were rejected through ‘cryptic’ and ‘non-speaking’ orders.
Alleged ante-dating to defeat Supreme Court ruling
Dr Dhonchak contended the removal order was ante-timed, having allegedly been passed a day after the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. Referring to proceedings before the Delhi High Court in an appeal on November 19, 2025, the petitioner asserts that counsel for the Union of India remained “stoically silent” about any removal order during the hearing.
“Had the said order been in existence by that point of time, the counsel would have most certainly disclosed this crucial fact. Thus, there is every likelihood of passing of the said order ante timed with the view to defeating the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court…,” Dr Dhonchak asserts, adding that the order as such is void in law.
No inquiry report, no show cause
The petitioner maintains that the removal rests on an ex-parte inquiry report never furnished to him and that no show cause notice or opportunity of personal hearing was granted. Dr Dhonchak quotes a Constitutional Bench judgment as saying: “The supply of the copy of the report is neither an empty formality, nor a ritual… The denial of the supply of the copy, therefore, causes to the delinquent a grave prejudice and avoidable injustice…”
Charges: Conduct and adjournments
On merits, the petition states that the charge sheet essentially contained two allegations — rude behaviour towards advocates and grant of long adjournments.
He asserts that no specific instance, date, particulars of alleged misbehaviour, or recording was cited, despite hybrid hearings being operational from June 2023 to February 2024. The absence of any video material, he claims, renders the charge an “outright witch hunt”.
Regarding adjournments, he claims to have been the highest-disposal Presiding Officer among 39 DRTs, asserting that his disposal exceeded the combined output of ten tribunals. The tribunal under him was handling nearly 12,000 cases, far beyond the 700–800 cases per DRT considered manageable by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a matter.
He argues that refusing to bow to Bar pressure for adjournments and declining to recognise “illegal strike or abstaining of the advocates from work” cannot be portrayed as misconduct. If saying an emphatic “no” to “mindless halting of the work” and resisting conversion of the tribunal into a “‘Tareekh Pe Tareekh’ Tribunal” are grave charges, he “takes pride in pleading guilty to those,” Dr Dhonchak has asserted.
