Delhi High Court Upholds Extension of Suspension of DRT Judge MM Dhonchak

Court Affirms Government’s Decision to Extend Suspension Pending Inquiry

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. The petition sought to contest the government’s decision, which was made pending an inquiry into allegations of misconduct.

Key Points of the Judgment:

• Suspension Extension: The initial suspension was imposed on February 13, 2024, and extended until May 8, 2025, due to ongoing inquiries into the allegations. The Central Government had earlier extended his suspension twice in 2024 following a review.
  
  
• Court’s Ruling: Justice Prateek Jalan held that the decision to extend the suspension was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The Court emphasized that judicial intervention in such matters is limited unless the suspension is found to be mala fide or unjustified.
  

Background of the Case:

MM Dhonchak was initially hailed as an 'activist judge' during his tenure in the district judiciary and had retired in 2021. In February 2022, he was appointed as the Presiding Officer of DRT-II in Chandigarh. However, his tenure was marred by allegations of misconduct raised by the DRT Bar Association, which eventually led to formal complaints.

• Bar Association’s Allegations: The Bar Association accused Dhonchak of passing adverse orders and filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in October 2023, citing strained relations with him. The High Court directed him not to pass adverse orders in pending cases, which led to further legal complications.
  
  
• Inquiry and Suspension: Following the High Court’s intervention, the Supreme Court directed the matter to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) Chairman, which recommended an inquiry led by Virender Singh, a former Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. Based on this recommendation, Dhonchak was suspended on February 13, 2024, and the suspension was extended multiple times.
  

Court’s Observations on Suspension:

Justice Jalan explained that the delay in inquiry was due to actions taken by Dhonchak, such as filing complaints against the inquiry officer, which led to the recusal of the officer and delayed the process. The Court noted that suspension is an interim measure to ensure a fair inquiry and that the Court’s role in challenging such extensions is limited.

• Prolonged Suspension and Petitioner's Stance: The Court pointed out that Dhonchak did not seek expedited proceedings, which was crucial in addressing concerns over prolonged suspension. This stance, according to the Court, limited the possibility of any relief.
  
  
• Court’s Reliance on Precedents: The Court referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments, which state that prolonged suspension alone is not a ground for quashing the suspension order, especially when serious allegations are involved.
  

Legal Implications:

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that suspension in matters involving serious misconduct is not a punitive measure but an interim one to facilitate a fair inquiry. The judgment also highlights the limited scope for judicial intervention in the extension of suspension orders unless there is evidence of arbitrary or mala fide actions.