The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by the presiding officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-II, Chandigarh, challenging an order that extended his suspension from service.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the Delhi High Court’s July decision that had dismissed the officer’s challenge to the second extension of his suspension. The petitioner, a retired judicial officer appointed to the tribunal in February 2022, argued that he had one of the highest disposal rates among DRTs.
However, the apex court noted complaints against his conduct from the DRT Bar Association. “If you don’t allow the lawyers to argue, you can decide all the cases everyday,” the bench remarked, while dismissing the plea.
Shortly after his appointment, several complaints were raised by members of the DRT Bar Association, alleging that the presiding officer refused adjournments, proceeded ex-parte in multiple matters, and dismissed cases without adequate hearing. In protest, lawyers abstained from appearing before him.
The association later approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which in October 2022 restrained the presiding officer from passing adverse orders, even as it criticised the bar for striking work. That order was modified by the Supreme Court in December 2022, allowing the officer to continue hearings and decide matters on merit.
A preliminary inquiry by the chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi, reportedly found instances of improper behaviour and adjournments of cases to as late as 2026, which the high court observed defeated the very purpose of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Subsequently, a search-cum-selection committee recommended his suspension in November 2023. The order was implemented in February 2024 and later extended.
The officer challenged the suspension extension before the Delhi High Court, contending that he was being penalised for strict adherence to procedure and refusal to “accommodate lawyers.” He alleged that false accusations had been levelled against him to undermine his functioning.
The high court dismissed his plea, and on Friday, the Supreme Court upheld that decision, bringing an end to his challenge.
