Delhi High Court Upholds Retired Judge MM Dhonchak's Suspension From DRT Over 'Behavioural Issues'

The Delhi High Court has upheld the suspension of MM Dhonchak, a retired judicial officer and former Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh, following various complaints alleging behavioural issues.

Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed a plea moved by Dhonchak challenging the order passed by Union Government placing him under suspension on February 13 last year.

The Court also rejected another plea moved by him challenging the order passed on May 13, 2024 extending his suspension.

Justice Jalan found no merits in the petitions and dismissed them. The Court said that it was bound by a division bench ruling which upheld Dhonchak's extension of suspension from the DRT. It noted that a challenge to the said ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court on August 29.

Dhonchak had contended that his disposal in the DRT was the highest amongst all the Presiding Officers, and that the complaints against him were mala fide.

On this, the Court said that it was not appropriate to adjudicate such contentions at the present stage, adding that disciplinary proceedings remained pending and that his submissions on merits must first be addressed there.

“The mere initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a chargesheet does not give rise to a cause of action, as it does not amount to an adverse order affecting the rights of a party, unless the same has been issued by a person/authority lacking jurisdiction,” the Court said.

Further, the Court noted that the Central Government, faced with complaints from the Bar Association and the orders of the Courts, caused a preliminary scrutiny to be conducted by the Chairperson, DRAT.

It said that Dhonchak was granted an opportunity of hearing even at the stage of scrutiny, and that his response was duly considered in the report of the Chairperson, DRAT.

“I do not find any jurisdictional or procedural defect in such a procedure. No statutory provision, rules, office memorandum or judgments were cited by the petitioner in support of his contentions in this regard,” it added.

The Court also rejected Dhonchak's contention that the institution of proceedings against him was ultra vires the powers of the Central Government.

Noting that Dhonchak did not advance any substantial arguments saying that the submissions had already been dealt with in the earlier judgments, the Court said:

“In fact, he submitted that this Bench ought not to deal with this writ petition, having decided the petitioner's earlier writ petition. I do not consider this to be a ground for recusal.”

Title: MM DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1197

Click here to read order