On 29 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the plea of M.M. Dhonchak, the former Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Chandigarh, challenging the extension of his suspension. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, marks yet another crucial precedent on judicial accountability, statutory rights of judicial officers, and the scope of suspension orders pending inquiry.
Background of the Case
M.M. Dhonchak, a judicial officer with over 35 years of service, was appointed as the Presiding Officer of DRT Chandigarh. Known for his high disposal rate of cases, Dhonchak claimed he was being penalized for efficiency and professionalism. According to him, he faced hostility from the Bar because he refused to accommodate advocates who demanded unnecessary adjournments.
His troubles began when the DRT Bar Association lodged multiple complaints alleging that Dhonchak discouraged advocates from presenting arguments, behaved rudely, and conducted proceedings in a manner that undermined judicial decorum.
On the basis of these complaints, the Central Government and the competent disciplinary authority placed him under suspension. His suspension was subsequently extended multiple times, leading him to approach the courts.
Arguments Raised by Dhonchak
Counsel for Dhonchak submitted the following points before the Supreme Court:
- Efficiency & Service Record – Dhonchak had an impeccable career spanning 35 years, with one of the highest disposal rates among judicial officers.
- No Misconduct, Only Efficiency – The complaints arose only because he was unwilling to “accommodate” advocates who sought adjournments.
- False Complaints – He contended that false and motivated complaints were made by the Bar to pressurize him.
- Right to Continue in Service – He argued that suspension could not be extended indefinitely, particularly when he had performed his duties in accordance with law.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench, however, was unconvinced.
- Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked:
“On the face of the record, he does not want the advocates to present cases. He can just put them under a lawnmower and…? Where is the statutory right to stick onto the post? Inquiry is still underway.”
- Justice Vikram Nath also quipped in response to his disposal rate argument:
“That’s the best. If you don’t have lawyers, you can dispose of all cases every day! You don’t allow the lawyers to argue.”
These observations highlighted that mere disposal statistics cannot substitute for procedural fairness. Judicial efficiency cannot come at the cost of denying advocates their right to argue cases fully.
Central Government’s Stand
The Union of India defended the extension of suspension, submitting that:
- The decision was based on verifiable records including written complaints, administrative notings, and reports by competent authorities.
- The nature of charges against Dhonchak was grave, warranting continuation of disciplinary proceedings.
- No officer has a statutory right to continue in judicial service when serious misconduct is alleged and inquiry is pending.
- The objective was to maintain judicial decorum and public confidence in tribunals.
High Court Proceedings Before the Appeal
Earlier, Dhonchak had approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the second extension of his suspension.
- A Single Bench dismissed his petition, observing that revocation of suspension at that stage would prejudice the fairness of the inquiry.
- A Division Bench later upheld the Single Bench’s decision, noting that:
- The charges were grave and prejudicial to public interest.
- The High Court itself had earlier passed scathing remarks on his conduct as a Presiding Officer.
- Tested on principles governing suspension orders, the extension of suspension could not be faulted.
Supreme Court’s Final Decision
The Supreme Court rejected Dhonchak’s Special Leave Petition, affirming the findings of the High Court and the competent authority.
- It reiterated that there was sufficient material to justify continuation of suspension.
- The Court emphasized that suspension during inquiry is a recognized tool to safeguard institutional integrity and prevent prejudice to proceedings.
- The Court also directed that it would be for the competent authority to ensure that litigants do not suffer due to the officer’s suspension and that the DRT continues to function smoothly.
Background Conflict Between Bench and Bar
The conflict between Dhonchak and the DRT Advocates Association had been simmering since 2022.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court had at one point restrained him from passing adverse orders due to complaints of rude behavior.
- Later, the Supreme Court modified this order, allowing Dhonchak to decide cases on merits but leaving the broader issue of strained relations to the DRAT Chairperson.
- The top court also advised both the Bench and the Bar to maintain cordial relations, highlighting the importance of a cooperative judicial atmosphere.
Key Legal Principles Reiterated
- Suspension Is Not Punishment – It is a preventive measure to ensure fair inquiry and protect institutional integrity.
- No Right to Continue in Post – Judicial officers cannot claim continuation in office as a statutory right when disciplinary proceedings are pending.
- Efficiency vs. Fairness – High disposal rates do not justify denial of advocates’ right to argue. Speed cannot substitute due process.
- Grave Misconduct Warrants Continuation of Suspension – Courts will not interfere where sufficient material exists for the authority to act.
Implications of the Judgment
- For Judicial Officers – The case is a reminder that judicial independence must be exercised with restraint, courtesy, and respect for the Bar. Efficiency alone cannot shield against allegations of misconduct.
- For the Bar – The judgment affirms that lawyers must have a fair opportunity to present cases, and judicial officers cannot curtail that right under the guise of speedy disposal.
- For the System – Suspension extensions, when backed by sufficient material, will not be lightly interfered with by constitutional courts.
Conclusion
The dismissal of M.M. Dhonchak’s plea by the Supreme Court underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that disciplinary processes against judicial officers are not diluted. While efficiency in case disposal is desirable, it cannot come at the expense of fair hearings and judicial decorum.
The ruling also highlights that suspension during inquiry is a necessary safeguard, not a punishment, and courts will not interfere unless the suspension is arbitrary or mala fide.
This case serves as a crucial precedent on the delicate balance between judicial efficiency and procedural fairness, reinforcing that the credibility of tribunals depends not just on the speed of justice but on the quality and fairness of adjudication.
Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict in Rape and Murder of 12-Year-Old Citing Shoddy Probe
Kerala High Court: Trial Judges Must Personally Verify Obscene Videos Before Conviction
