Delhi High Court upholds extension of suspension of Chandigarh DRT judge MM Dhonchak

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by MM Dhonchak, a retired judicial officer and former Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-II, Chandigarh, challenging the extension of his suspension for an additional 180 days..Justice Prateek Jalan held that Central government's decision to extend the suspension was not arbitrary or perverse..The suspension, initially imposed on February 13, 2024, was extended until May 8, 2025, pending an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against the judge.Dhonchak was hailed as an 'activist judge' while serving in the district judiciary, and retired from service in 2021. He was appointed as the Presiding Officer of DRT-II Chandigarh on February 20, 2022. His tenure was marred by complaints from the DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh, which accused him of misconduct. The complaints were referred to the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi, who oversees DRTs.The situation escalated when the Bar Association abstained from work and filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging adverse orders passed by him. In October 2023, the High Court noted a strained relationship between Dhonchak and the Bar Association and restrained him from passing adverse orders in pending cases.Following this, Dhonchak filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which left the matter to the DRAT Chairman. A preliminary report dated July 10, 2023 led to the formation of a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), which recommended an inquiry by former Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court Virender Singh..On February 13, 2024, Dhonchak was suspended based on the SCSC’s recommendation. His suspension was initially extended for 180 days on May 13, 2024, and again on November 5, 2024, following a review by the Suspension Review Committee (SRC).Dhonchak sought a change in the inquiry officer alleging bias, but his request was rejected by the Central government. The officer subsequently recused himself in May 2024, citing these allegations. A new inquiry officer is yet to be appointed..It is under these circumstances that the government extended his suspension by another 180 days. .The Court noted that the delay in the inquiry was primarily due to the petitioner’s actions, including his allegations against the inquiry officer. It emphasised that suspension is an interim measure to ensure a fair inquiry and that judicial intervention in such matters is limited unless the suspension order is mala fide, arbitrary, or perverse."Although the complaint made on 05.03.2024 was rejected on 29.04.2024, the petitioner sought review thereof, which was also rejected on 04.06.2024," the Court noted. .Notably, the Court found that the petitioner explicitly stated that he did not seek expedited proceedings. Justice Jalan observed that this stance deprived the petitioner of potential relief, as courts often direct time-bound inquiries in cases of prolonged suspension."The Court would have made an attempt to ensure that the detriment of prolonged suspension is alleviated, by considering the possibility of a time-bound inquiry. However, such consideration was foreclosed by learned counsel for the petitioner himself, who categorically submitted that the petitioner does not seek expedition of the inquiry proceedings.".The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments that underscored that prolonged suspension is not a ground for quashing suspension orders, especially when allegations are serious..Dhonchak was represented by Advocate Satyawan Kudalwal.The Central government was represented by Advocates Pratima N Lakra, Chandan Prajapati, Kashish G Baweja, Sushan Gupta and Suvarcha Mittal.Advocate Sanjeev Bhandari represented the DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh..[Read Judgment]