Delhi High Court Dismisses Retired DRT Presiding Officer's Review Plea Against Suspension

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a retired judicial officer's review petition challenging its earlier judgment rejecting his plea against suspension and disciplinary proceedings as Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT), Chandigarh.

A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Tejas Karia held that M.M. Dhonchak had failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Dhonchak was suspended in February 2024 following complaints by the DRT Bar Association alleging misbehaviour with members of the Bar and inordinately long adjournments. He challenged the suspension, chargesheet, and appointment of the inquiry officer, as well as the extension of his suspension over the subsistence allowance.

The single judge dismissed his petitions, holding that the allegations had to be examined in disciplinary proceedings. The division bench later dismissed his appeal, ruling that the challenges to the suspension and extension orders had become infructuous after he was removed from service in November 2025. He has challenged the removal order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In his review petition, Dhonchak argued that the division bench had overlooked submissions concerning his subsistence allowance, the effect of his removal on the suspension challenges, and allegations of forgery, dishonesty and mala fides in the chargesheet.

Rejecting the plea, the court observed that review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen a case on its merits.

“Review is not an appellate jurisdiction and cannot be invoked to reassess the merits or substitute one possible view for another. A review petition cannot become an appeal in disguise,” the bench observed.

The court held that its earlier judgment had addressed the issues before it. Since the suspension and extension orders had become infructuous following his removal, it was not required to examine every submission challenging those orders.

On the subsistence allowance, the court noted that Dhonchak had sought the setting aside of the extension order and reinstatement, but had not specifically sought enhancement of the allowance. The related claim had also become infructuous.

The bench further observed that suspension pending an inquiry is an interim measure. Once the disciplinary proceedings culminated in his removal, the suspension ceased to operate independently.

The court added that his objections to the chargesheet had already been decided by the single judge, whose findings were affirmed in the earlier judgment. His challenge to the removal order, including objections concerning the inquiry report, would be considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Finding no error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground for review, the court dismissed the petition without an order as to costs.

For Appellant: Advocate Balraj Singh Malik

For Respondent: Advocates Pratima N Lakra, CGSC and Shailendra Kumar Mishra