The High Court of Delhi has formally dismissed a review petition filed by M.M. Dhonchak, a former Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT), Chandigarh, who sought to challenge the legality of his prior suspension and subsequent removal from service. In a judgment delivered by the Division Bench, the Court upheld its earlier decision, maintaining that the challenges directed toward the suspension orders had been rendered moot by the culmination of disciplinary proceedings and the eventual issuance of a removal order.

The presiding bench, consisting of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Tejas Karia, underscored that the scope of a review petition under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , is strictly confined. According to the bench, the applicant failed to demonstrate any " error apparent on the face of the record ," which is the fundamental threshold for such a judicial remedy . The Court further observed that the petitioner was essentially attempting to reopen the merits of the case, a practice characterized by the judges as an " appeal in disguise " rather than a legitimate review of the previous judgment.

The controversy originated in early 2024, when the DRT Bar Association in Chandigarh raised multiple complaints against the former presiding officer, alleging instances of misbehaviour with members of the legal fraternity and the practice of granting inordinately long adjournments. Responding to these allegations, the Union of India issued a suspension order on February 13, 2024, which was followed by a formal chargesheet on February 26, 2024. This initiated a lengthy sequence of legal challenges across multiple forums, with the officer repeatedly questioning the validity of his suspension and the subsequent extensions ordered by the government.

Throughout the litigation, the former presiding officer challenged the suspension, the appointment of the inquiry officer, and the failure to enhance his subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% of his last-drawn pay. These challenges were consistently met with dismissals in various writ petitions and subsequent appeals. By the time the present review petition reached the High Court, the disciplinary inquiry had concluded, resulting in the officer's removal from service on November 18, 2025. That removal order is now the subject of separate ongoing proceedings before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

In addressing the petitioner’s claims, the High Court focused on the legal status of an interim suspension pending disciplinary action. The Court clarified that such measures are strictly temporary, designed to ensure the integrity of the inquiry process. Once the disciplinary proceedings conclude in a final order, the initial suspension loses its independent existence, and its validity ceases to be a primary concern in isolation from the final outcome. The bench articulated this point clearly, noting: “Suspension pending inquiry is an interim measure intended to facilitate the unhindered conduct of disciplinary proceedings.”

Regarding the petitioner’s contention that his written submissions and specific pleadings had been overlooked, the Court clarified that its earlier decision had sufficiently addressed the essential legal issues. The High Court rejected the argument that it was obligated to provide a point-by-point rebuttal of every submission when the primary relief sought had already been rendered infructuous by the officer's removal from service. The judgment stated: “The scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited. Review lies upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced when the order was passed, or upon an error apparent on the face of the record.”

The High Court further addressed the appellant’s claims concerning the alleged lack of reasons in the original appellate judgment. The bench maintained that the initial judgment provided a sound rationale for the dismissal of the appeal, and the current attempt to re-argue the case through a review petition was impermissible. The Court emphasized: “The present Review Petition is, therefore, in the nature of an appeal in disguise.” By seeking to relitigate issues that had already been adjudicated, the petitioner failed to meet the required criteria for a review of the previous findings.

Furthermore, the High Court addressed the petitioner’s request for a higher subsistence allowance, noting that even if this claim had merit in a different context, the challenge against the extension of the suspension had been rendered futile by the final order of removal. The court observed that the petitioner did not originally seek independent, specific relief regarding the allowance, but rather tied it to his reinstatement as the Presiding Officer of the DRT. Consequently, because the overarching challenge to the suspension did not survive the removal, the incidental claim regarding the subsistence allowance also failed to provide a ground for relief in the current review.

All outstanding grievances concerning the inquiry report, the truth of the charges levelled, and the procedural integrity of the chargesheet are currently being considered in the separate challenge pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Delhi High Court deemed it inappropriate to interfere with these matters, as they would be determined in the appropriate forum where the removal order is being directly contested.

Having found no procedural or jurisdictional defect in the earlier ruling, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the review petition. The case serves as a reminder of the narrow legal boundaries governing review petitions and the established legal principle that interim administrative measures, such as suspensions, typically become secondary to the final outcome of the underlying disciplinary process. No order for costs was passed in the dismissal of this petition, bringing this specific segment of the litigation to a close.