Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the extension of suspension of a Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh. The Court held that the suspension was lawful, necessary to preserve the sanctity of the inquiry process, and based on serious allegations involving judicial impropriety, observing:
“Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered.”
The Court found no procedural irregularity in the extension of suspension and noted that public interest outweighed the claim for reinstatement during the pendency of the inquiry.
Facts
The appellant, a retired judicial officer appointed as Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Chandigarh, faced multiple complaints from the DRT Bar Association alleging judicial impropriety and misconduct, including granting adjournments beyond tenure, creating friction with the Bar, and affecting debt recovery.
During the pendency of complaints, lawyers abstained from appearing before him, leading to ex-parte dismissals, which the High Court initially restrained. The Supreme Court later modified the order, allowing the appellant to continue but directed both Bar and the Presiding Officer to maintain cordiality.
A preliminary report by the DRAT Chairperson highlighted the appellant’s conduct as detrimental to the purpose of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, including adjourning cases to 2026, beyond his tenure, impacting financial recoveries, and causing delays contrary to statutory objectives.
Following recommendations, an inquiry under Rule 9 of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, was initiated, and suspension was imposed, later extended twice. The appellant challenged the extension before a Single Judge, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether the continuation of suspension during the pendency of inquiry was valid and justified.
- Whether procedural requirements under the Tribunal Reforms Act and CCS Rules were complied with.
- Whether the suspension prejudices the appellant’s rights and hampers DRT functioning.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the suspension was punitive, lacked basis, and was harming public interest by stalling DRT functioning. It was contended that:
- Complaints were false and arose from his strict judicial functioning.
- Extension orders violated natural justice, relying on undisclosed SRC minutes.
- There was no valid reason to continue suspension, particularly when inquiry delays were not attributable to him.
- Allegations regarding misuse of video-conference systems did not form part of the charge sheet and could not influence suspension decisions.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued:
- Judicial review of suspension is limited to cases of mala fide or lack of material, relying on State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty and Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
- Suspension during inquiry is preventive, not punitive, and necessary to maintain public confidence.
- Grave allegations of judicial impropriety justified continued suspension.
- Delay in inquiry was due to the appellant’s objection to the Inquiry Officer, who recused, and procedural steps were promptly taken thereafter.
- The extension was legally compliant under Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules and Rule 9 of Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the law on suspension:
- Suspension is not punishment but a preventive measure to ensure uninfluenced inquiry (Bimal Kumar Mohanty).
- Courts should not interfere unless suspension is mala fide, arbitrary, or lacks a prima facie basis (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal).
- Public interest and the nature of allegations determine the validity of suspension.
Applying these principles, the Court found the allegations (rude behaviour with Bar, adjourning cases to 2026, impacting debt recovery) grave and the procedure for suspension compliant with statutory requirements.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126
Held that suspension is preventive, and courts should interfere only if suspension is mala fide or arbitrary. - Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147
Held that delay in inquiry alone is insufficient to quash suspension if allegations are grave. - Director General, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra v. Mohd Shahbaz & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 2203)
Reinforced the limited scope of judicial review in suspension matters.
These precedents were applied to uphold the suspension and dismiss the challenge.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The inquiry involves grave charges of judicial impropriety affecting public interest and the economy.
- Suspension was necessary to prevent interference with the inquiry and maintain public confidence.
- Procedural safeguards under applicable rules were followed.
- SRC’s reliance on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s observations regarding manipulation of video conferencing systems was based on judicial records.
- The sealed cover procedure, while ideally requiring disclosure, did not prejudice the appellant as reasons were disclosed in the reply.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court upheld the extension of the suspension, finding no merit in the appeal. It held that the allegations were serious, the suspension was valid, and public interest outweighed the appellant’s claim for reinstatement during the inquiry.
Implications
- Reinforces the legal position that suspension pending inquiry is preventive and in public interest.
- Highlights that courts will not interfere unless suspension is arbitrary, mala fide, or lacks material.
- Signals the judiciary’s intolerance toward conduct that undermines statutory objectives and public trust.
FAQs
1. Can a Presiding Officer be suspended during an inquiry for judicial impropriety?
Yes, a Presiding Officer can be preventively suspended during a pending inquiry if grave allegations affect public interest, without it being considered punishment.
2. What is the legal position on continued suspension if an inquiry is delayed?
Delay alone does not justify revoking suspension if the allegations are grave and procedures under service rules are followed, as held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
3. Can courts interfere with suspension orders easily?
Courts will interfere only if suspension is arbitrary, mala fide, or lacks material basis. Otherwise, suspension pending inquiry remains within administrative discretion.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Case