1. A judicial officer challenges suspension orders and subsequent disciplinary removal proceedings, seeking review of an appellate judgment that dismissed those challenges as infructuous. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 23668
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 09.10.2026
Judgment Delivered on: 16.10.2026
CNR No. DLHC010913172025
LPA 703/2025 (disposed of)
M.M. DHONCHAK .....APPELLANT
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....RESPONDENT
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Balraj Singh Malik, Advocate with Appellant in-person.
For the Respondent : Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr.Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026
VN / SZ
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The appellant contends the court failed to consider written arguments regarding subsistence allowance, the validity of the chargesheet, and wrongly held previous challenges infructuous upon removal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be invoked as an appeal to reassess merits or substitute findings. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. An interim suspension order pending inquiry ceases to have independent validity upon the completion of disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent removal of the employee from service. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. The review petition is dismissed as it fails to establish any error apparent on the face of the record and merely seeks reconsideration of findings on merits. (Para 21 )
6. Does a challenge to a suspension order survive the final passing of a removal order?
No, constitutional challenges to interim suspension orders rendered pending a disciplinary inquiry become infructuous once the inquiry culminates in a final removal order. (Para 15 , 16 )
7. Can a review petition be used to challenge a court's failure to address specific written submissions?
A review cannot be maintained simply because not every submission was explicitly addressed; a court is not required to deal with every argument if it establishes clear grounds for its judgment. (Para 13 )
8. What is the scope of review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding earlier findings?
Review jurisdiction is limited to discovering new evidence or correcting errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used as a disguise for a fresh appeal on merits. (Para 10 , 11 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
9. Is an incidental claim for subsistence allowance maintainable when the primary challenge is rendered infructuous?
No, if the underlying challenge to the suspension order is held to be infructuous, the incidental claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance during that suspension period also fails. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
REVIEW PET. 469/2026
1. The present Review Petition has been filed by the Appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 17.08.2026 (“Judgment”) passed by this Court in LPA 703/2025 (“Appeal”), whereby the Appeal against the common judgment dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos. 5143/2024 and 8478/2024 (“Writ Petitions”) was dismissed.
2. The Appellant, a retired judicial officer, was appointed Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh (“DRT”) on 20.02.2022. Following complaints by the DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh, alleging misbehaviour with members of the Bar and inordinately long adjournments, the Appellant was suspended by order dated 13.02.2024 (“Suspension Order”) and served with a chargesheet dated 26.02.2024 initiating disciplinary proceedings. In W.P.(C) 5143/2024, the Appellant challenged the Suspension Order, the chargesheet, and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer. The Appellant’s suspension was extended from 13.05.2024 to 09.11.2024 by order dated 13.05.2024 (“Extension Order”), which was challenged by the Appellant in W.P.(C) 8478/2024, inter alia, on the ground that the subsistence allowance had not been enhanced beyond 50% of the Appellant’s last drawn pay. The suspension was further extended until 08.05.2025 by order dated 05.11.2024 and until 04.11.2025 by order dated 06.05.2025. The challenge to the order dated 05.11.2024 in W.P.(C) 15933/2024 by the Appellant was dismissed on 03.03.2025 and LPA 204/2025 against the judgment dated 03.03.2025 filed by the Appellant was also dismissed on 01.07.2025. Further, SLP (C) 23602/2025 filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.08.2025.
3. By common judgment dated 26.09.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions, holding that the merits of the allegations were to be determined in the disciplinary proceedings, no jurisdictional or procedural defect attended their initiation, and the challenges to the Suspension Order and the Extension Order lacked merit. Meanwhile, the Inquiry Officer submitted the report on 03.06.2025, and the Appellant was removed from service by order dated 18.11.2025 (“Removal Order”), which has been challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP 6521/2026 (“CWP 6521/2026”). By the Judgment, this Court dismissed the Appeal, holding that the challenges to the Suspension Order and the Extension Order had become infructuous upon the Appellant’s removal and that there was no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”).
4. The Appellant has sought review of the Judgment, broadly contending that the Judgment has failed to consider material pleadings and written submissions concerning the enhancement of subsistence allowance, the challenge to the Suspension Order, and the effect of the Removal Order. It is further contended by the Appellant that the Appellant was entitled to enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% after 90 days, as the delay in the inquiry was not attributable to the Appellant. The Appellant has also contended that the written arguments, though filed and relied upon, were not referred to in the Judgment, causing grave prejudice to the Appellant.
5. The Appellant further submitted that the pleadings forming the foundation of the Appeal could not have been ignored, and that the challenges to the Suspension Order and the Extension Order survived the subsequent Removal Order, as each had distinct legal consequences and the Removal Order was challenged separately on limited grounds. It was submitted by the Appellant that the finding of the Appeal having become infructuous disregarded the order dated 26.11.2025, which recorded the Appellant’s stand that invalidation of the inquiry would automatically affect the Removal Order.
6. The Appellant has contended that the Judgment has failed to address the grounds challenging the chargeshee
