Chandigarh Debts Recovery Tribunal judge M M Dhonchak has challenged his suspension in Delhi High Court in which he has prayed for setting aside order of his suspension. The HC has issued notice of Motion to the respondents. He has said that as per the charge sheet, the petitioner has been primarily charged with two charges and the third charge not being a substantive charge, is dependent upon the outcome of the first and second charges.
The first charge is with regard to the long adjournments of the cases and thereby slowing down the pace of the recovery of debts. In the matter of disposal of the cases, the petitioner being adjudged by the respondent at No. 1 among all the 39 DRTs across the country, could not be charged with this charge by any standards. When the petitioner joined DRT-II, Chandigarh, on 25.02.2022, in terms of the pending cases, it was the heaviest DRT in India having around 12,000 cases. The annual institution of the OAs/SAs in the DRT is not less than 2,500. Therefore, there is likely to be docket of 22,000 cases during the tenure of the petitioner if no case is decided. If a Presiding Officer decides about 500 cases annually, he is considered a good Presiding Officer. Therefore, the expected disposal from the petitioner being 2,000 cases in 4 years, even the adjournment of 20,000 cases beyond the tenure of the petitioner, would not have been questionable by any standards. The petitioner is not accused of violating any instruction of the Department with regard to the pace of adjournments.
Disposal of the petitioner with regard to the Securitisation Applications (SAs) is at a very high level in comparison to other Presiding Officers. If the information of the petitioner does not belie him, the disposal of the SAs from 01.03.2022 to 31.01.2024 in DRT-III, Chandigarh, is 370 whereas that of the DRT presided over by the petitioner during the corresponding period is 781. The Presiding Officer of DRT-III, Chandigarh, is no pygmy but a stalwart in the field of disposal of the cases, who being at No. 2 in the matter of total disposal by the Presiding Officers across the country, had already proved his mettle by following in the footsteps of the petitioner. From the huge difference of disposal of the SAs between the petitioner and the Presiding Officer of DRT-III, Chandigarh, one can easily gauge the penchant and might of the petitioner in disposal of the SAs.
As far as overall disposal of the cases is concerned, a perusal of Annexure-8 reveals that in the Financial Year 2023-2024 up to 31.01. 2024,DRT-3, Delhi, had monthly disposal rate of 8, DRT-1, Chennai 10, DRT-2, Kolkata 11, DRT Cuttack, 33, DRT Nagpur, 39, DRT, Siliguri, 40, DRT-1, Ahmedabad, 50, DRT Gauhati, 57, DRT-3, Kolkata, 58, DRT-1, Kolkata, 59, DRT-2, Delhi, 61, DRT-1,Hyderabad, 65, DRT-1, Ernakulam, 66 and DRT Jaipur, 70 cases. Annexure-8 further reveals that 21 DRTs had monthly disposal in two digits only whereas the monthly disposal of the petitioner during the corresponding period was 348 cases. It further reveals that DRT-3, Chandigarh, at No.2 has to its credit, 246 cases and DRT Allahabad at No.3 had210 cases per month.
The second charge against the petitioner is about the petitioner having rude behaviour towards the Advocates. Surprisingly, there is no detail of the alleged rude behaviour. There is a stoic silence with regard to the details of rude behavior, the victim of the same, its timing and witnesses in whose presence, it took place.
Judge has said that the chargesheet was served upon the petitioner after 6 months and 2 days of the approval of the inquiry against him. As per well settled principles of service/administrative jurisprudence, an inquiry can be ordered against an officer only after his reply to the chargesheet is found and pronounced as unsatisfactory by the Punishing Authority. Not only this, even the said pronouncement has to be by way of a speaking/reasoned order disclosing therein as to why the same was/is unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, it is a classic case of complete non application of mind and also putting the cart before the horse thereby also violating the wellentrenched principles of natural justice.
Before the various Hon’ble Division Benches of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, at least twice, Sh. Satyapal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, made statements that there was no scope of any interim action against the petitioner. This version of the Additional Solicitor General, was not ‘off the cuff’ but on being specifically asked by the Division Benches at different points of time and same was in response to that after obtaining the instructions from the respondent. What to talk of the stand taken by the Additional Solicitor General, Sh. Satyapal Jain, vide order dated 03.11.2023, even the Hon’ble Division Bench admitted that there was no scope of any interim action against the petitioner except under Section 17A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, at the hands of the Chairperson DRAT, Delhi.
The petitioner had more than sixty cases in which Debt was more than ₹ 100 crores. As per instructions of the Ministry of Finance, such cases are not to be adjourned beyond a period of seven days and going by those standards, at least eight such cases are to be fixed on every working day of the Tribunal. It is an uphill task to take up even eight such cases on a day given the quantity and quality of the supporting staff in the Tribunal and required effective time for proper adjudication of cases which require detailed reasons based on factual narration by respective parties and comparison/matching of the same from the record. It goes without saying that there are urgent matters which need to be adjudicated without any loss of time. Similarly, pretty old cases are to be adjourned/decided not at usual pace but at the earliest by granting short adjournments and the same holds true in respect of the cases to be decided in a time bound manner in view of directions by the Hon'ble Supreme/High Court and the Hon'ble Appellate Authority.