The Supreme Court has rejected the plea of a Chandigarh DRT presiding officer challenging the extension of his suspension, despite his claim of having one of the highest case disposal rates. The court remarked, “If you don’t allow the lawyers to argue, you can decide all the cases everyday.”
New Delhi: On August 29, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a presiding officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh, who had challenged the extension of his suspension.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and refused to interfere with the order passed earlier by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner, a retired judicial officer, had approached the top court against the July order of the Delhi High Court.
The high court’s division bench had already dismissed his plea against a single judge’s decision, which had rejected his challenge to the second order of extension of his suspension from the post of presiding officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the officer was among the most efficient presiding officers in the DRTs and had one of the highest case disposal rates.
At this point, the Supreme Court remarked,
“If you don’t allow the lawyers to argue, you can decide all the cases everyday,” and dismissed the plea.
According to the case record, the petitioner was appointed as the presiding officer of DRT-II, Chandigarh, on February 20, 2022. Soon after, multiple complaints were filed against him by members of the DRT Bar Association.
These complaints were sent to the chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi, for further examination.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Moves to Include Women Lawyers Under PoSH Act, Seeks BCI Response
While the complaints were pending, lawyers of the DRT Bar Association began boycotting proceedings before him. They alleged that instead of giving adjournments, the officer often proceeded ex-parte and dismissed cases without hearing lawyers properly.
Later, the DRT Bar Association even moved a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the orders passed by the officer. In October 2022, the high court came down heavily on the striking lawyers but also restrained the presiding officer from passing any adverse orders against parties.
The officer then challenged this order before the Supreme Court. In December 2022, the top court modified the high court’s ruling and allowed him to continue with hearings and to decide cases strictly on merits.
Meanwhile, a preliminary report prepared by the DRAT chairperson pointed out instances of the officer’s improper behaviour towards lawyers. The report also noted that he was prima facie defeating the purpose of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, by adjourning several cases to the year 2026.
Following this, an inquiry was conducted. In November 2023, a search-cum-selection committee recommended his suspension. Acting on this recommendation, the officer was first suspended in February 2024, and later, the suspension was extended.
Challenging this extension, the officer again moved the Delhi High Court, claiming he was being targeted despite his diligence.
He argued before the court that he was only performing his duties as per law and insisted that he was facing disciplinary action simply because he refused to accommodate lawyers.
According to him,
“only because he was unwilling to accommodate lawyers, false accusations were filed against him.”
However, both the high court and now the Supreme Court have refused to interfere with the suspension.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Supreme Court vs Allahabad High Court
