M M DHONCHAK vs UNION OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~P-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 03.03.2025 + W.P.(C) 15933/2024 & CM APPLs. 66981/2024, 75074/2024, 8490/2025 M M DHONCHAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyawan Kudalwal, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Ms. Kashish G. Baweja, Advocates for UoI with Mr. Sushan Gupta, Ms. Suvarcha Mittal. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate for DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN JUDGMENT 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order of the Union of India [“UOI”] – Ministry of Finance dated 05.11.2024, by which the suspension of the petitioner from the post of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal [“DRT”]-II, Chandigarh, was extended for a period of 180 days beyond 09.11.2024. A. Facts 2. The petitioner, a retired Judicial Officer, was appointed as the Presiding Officer, DRT-II Chandigarh, on 20.02.2022. According to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA W.P.(C) 15933/2024 Page 1 of 13 Signing Date:04.03.2025 10:30:05 respondent-UOI, various representations were received against him from the DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh, which were referred by the UOI to the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [“DRAT”]-Delhi, who exercises general power of superintendence over the DRTs under his jurisdiction. During the pendency of the complaints, however, the members of the DRT Bar Association abstained from work on two days, and then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana1 against orders passed by the petitioner herein, dismissing their proceedings on those days. On 27.10.20222, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana noted that the relationship between the DRT Bar Association and the Presidin