'You Don't Allow Lawyers To Argue' : Supreme Court Dismisses Former DRT Chandigarh Judge's Plea Against Extension Of Suspension

The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea filed by MM Dhonchak, former Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Chandigarh, against an order extending his suspension.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Counsel for Dhonchak argued that he was an efficient officer who served for 35 years and disposed of maximum cases. Unconvinced, Justice Mehta remarked, "On the face of the record, he does not want the advocates to present cases. He can just put them (cases) under a lawnmower and...? Where is the statutory right to stick onto the post? Inquiry is still underway".

When it was emphasized that Dhonchak had one of the best disposal rates, Justice Nath also quipped, "That's the best. If you don't have lawyers, you can dispose of all cases everyday! You don't allow the lawyers to argue".

To recap, Dhonchak approached the High Court pleading that he was being penalized for doing his work diligently and in a professional manner. Because he was unwilling to accommodate the lawyers, false complaints were made against him, he alleged.

The Central Government, on the other hand, submitted that the findings of the competent authority were based on verifiable records, including written complaints from the DRT Bar Association, administrative notings, documented conduct affecting judicial decorum, and reports prepared by competent authorities. It was contended that Dhonchak could not seek continuation in active judicial service as a matter of right, particularly when the disciplinary process was pending.

Initially, a Single Bench dismissed his petition against the second order of extension of suspension, noting that revoking his suspension would not be conducive to the conduct of a fair inquiry. Vide the impugned order, a Division Bench upheld the Single Bench order.

Rejecting Dhonchak's appeal, the Division Bench observed that the nature of the charges on which he was being proceeded against was grave and his acts were stated to be prejudicial to public interest. Further, it was noted that various orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made scathing comments on the conduct of Dhonchak in his capacity as the Presiding Officer of the DRT.

“Tested on the above principles of law governing the scrutiny of an order of suspension or its continuation, no fault can be found in the order extending the suspension of the appellant,” the Division Bench said.

It was also opined that there was sufficient material before the competent authority to continue with the suspension of Dhonchak and that it would be for the Competent Authority to take requisite steps to ensure that litigants do not suffer due to the suspension and the DRT functions to discharge its duties.

The petitioner and the DRT Advocates Association were at loggerheads with the lawyers alleging that the officer was hostile to them. In 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had restrained the officer from passing adverse orders in cases, which the Supreme Court later modified. The Supreme Court allowed Dhonchak to decide matters on their merits, though the High Court order was a result of a petition by the DRT Bar Association alleging rude behavior by the judicial member. The Supreme Court left the broader issue of the strained relationship to the DRAT Chairperson to decide and advised both the bench and the bar to maintain a cordial atmosphere.

Case Title: M. M. DHONCHAK Versus UNION OF INDIA, SLP(C) No. 23602/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order