A Special Writ Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by the Presiding Officer of DRT-II Chandigarh, alleging that the remarks made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court had a devastating effect on his career, credibility and reputation.
The petition alleged that the order passed by the High Court on March 23 had adversely impacted the officer’s legal performance, besides virtually proposing his suspension or transfer from the present place of posting.
It said the Division Bench of the High Court, while perusing some of the orders passed by Presiding Officer M.M. Dhonchak, had observed that the officer had dismissed an application in his usual perfunctory manner.
It said Dhonchak was insensitive towards the people who had taken loans and had outstanding debts due to various reasons, including deaths that took place during the pandemic. Besides, his responsibility level was far below the standards expected from a person, who has retired as a District Judge, noted the plea.
Further indicating the failure of the Presiding Officer in discharging his judicial duties, the High Court said it was constrained to step in and safeguard the interest of the litigants.
The Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association had filed a writ petition in the High Court in October last year, alleging that Dhonchak had harassed the Counsels appearing both for financial institutions and borrowers.
Even the Bar Association had also gone on a strike on October 26, 2022, protesting against the officer. The Association further refrained from appearing before him.
While assailing the conduct of the Bar Association for going on a strike, the High Court passed an interim order to prevent the ‘wholesale dismissal’ of cases pending before Dhonchak.
The Division Bench, taking in view the ‘serious allegations’ against the Officer and his ‘severely strained’ relationship with the Bar Association, restrained him from passing any adverse orders in any of the cases pending before him till November 30, 2022.
The officer moved the Apex Court against this direction in November last year.
He contended that it was the well-settled law that the Bar Association had no authority to discuss the conduct of a Judge in its meeting.
Dhonchak said the Advocates could not resort to strike or boycott and a Bar Association could not pass a resolution to support the strike or boycott of the Court work.
The petition further said the High Court order sent a message that the judicial officers should be subservient to the ‘arm-twisting’ tactics adopted by the Bar.
Dhonchak claimed that his reputation of being an honest and upright judge after years of service as a District Judge had been impacted by the verdict.