Punjab and Haryana High Court Takes Up Former DRT Officer's Removal Challenge
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has formally issued notice to the central government in response to a significant petition filed by M M Dhonchak, the former presiding officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 (DRT-2) in Chandigarh. The petition seeks judicial intervention to quash the removal order dated November 18, 2025, which terminated Dhonchak from his official position. The court has scheduled the next hearing in this matter for April 30, marking a critical development in this ongoing legal dispute.
Allegations of Procedural Irregularities and Lack of Due Process
According to the detailed petition presented before the court, the sequence of events leading to Dhonchak's removal raises serious questions about procedural fairness. The inquiry against him was reportedly approved on August 24, 2023, which the petitioner claims occurred even before any formal chargesheet was issued. Dhonchak has asserted that the order directing this inquiry was never communicated to him directly. He only became aware of the proceedings when he was placed under suspension on February 13, 2024.
A formal chargesheet was eventually issued on February 26, 2024, approximately six months after the inquiry was initially ordered. The petition argues that this timeline demonstrates significant procedural delays and inconsistencies. Furthermore, Dhonchak contends that his removal order was ante-timed and issued after the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the case titled "Madras Bar Association versus Union of India", which struck down key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
Claims of Unfair Inquiry and Denial of Natural Justice
The petition highlights several alleged violations of natural justice principles. Dhonchak has claimed that the removal decision was based solely on an ex parte inquiry report that was never supplied to him for review or rebuttal. Crucially, he alleges that no show-cause notice was issued, and he was granted no opportunity for a hearing before the final removal order was passed. This lack of procedural safeguards, according to the petitioner, fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of the disciplinary action taken against him.
Substantive Defense Against the Alleged Misconduct Charges
On the substantive merits of the case, Dhonchak has provided a robust defense against the two primary allegations contained in the chargesheet: rude behavior towards advocates and the granting of excessive adjournments. Regarding the behavior allegations, the petitioner submitted that no specific instances, dates, or verifiable evidence of misconduct were cited in the chargesheet. He emphasized that hybrid hearings were fully operational from June 2023 to February 2024, yet no video or audio evidence was produced to substantiate the claims. Dhonchak characterized these unsubstantiated allegations as nothing more than a "witch hunt" aimed at tarnishing his professional reputation.
Concerning the adjournments issue, Dhonchak presented compelling performance data to counter the accusations. He asserted that during his tenure, he was the highest-disposal presiding officer among all 39 Debts Recovery Tribunals across the country. His case disposal figures reportedly exceeded the combined output of ten other tribunals. Dhonchak, who argued his case in person before the court, further explained that DRT-2 in Chandigarh was handling an exceptionally high caseload of approximately 12,000 cases. This number far surpasses the manageable limit of 700–800 cases per DRT, as established in the "Indu Kapoor versus AU Small Finance Bank" precedent before the Delhi High Court.
The petition underscores that the extraordinary caseload necessitated certain administrative measures, including adjournments, to ensure proper case management and justice delivery. Dhonchak's legal team has framed the removal as a punitive action disconnected from his actual performance metrics and the operational realities of the tribunal. The High Court's issuance of notice to the central government indicates that these arguments have garnered judicial attention, setting the stage for a thorough examination of both procedural and substantive aspects in the upcoming hearing.
