HC Directs DRAT Chair Preliminary Scrutiny & Govt Decision on DRT PO's Conduct Under Rule 9(1) Tribunal Conditions of Service Rules 2021

High Court Orders Preliminary Scrutiny into Lucknow DRT Presiding Officer's Conduct

Lucknow: The High Court has directed the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Allahabad, to conduct a preliminary scrutiny into allegations of misbehaviour and incapacity against Shri A.H. Khan , the Presiding Officer (PO) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Lucknow. The Court further instructed the Central Government to take a reasoned decision based on the DRAT Chairperson's report within a stipulated timeframe.

The order came in response to Writ Petition (Writ-C No. 7725 of 2022) filed by the DRT Bar Association, Lucknow.

Background and Allegations

The DRT Bar Association filed the writ petition seeking an inquiry under Section 15(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, read with the DRT (Procedure for Investigation of Misbehaviour or Incapacity of Presiding Officer) Rules, 2010. The Association alleged consistent misbehaviour, temperamental issues, arbitrariness, nepotism, favouritism, and procedural irregularities against the Presiding Officer, Shri A.H. Khan , citing specific instances detailed in Paragraph 55 of their petition and a formal complaint dated 12.10.2022. They alternatively prayed for his transfer due to his alleged vindictive approach following their representation.

These allegations led to the Bar Association abstaining from judicial work in October 2022. This abstention prompted separate writ petitions (Writ-C No. 7240 of 2022 and Writ-C No. 7362 of 2022) by borrowers whose cases were stalled before the DRT, potentially allowing banks to seize assets under the SARFAESI Act. In those cases, the High Court had deemed the strike unlawful, directed the lawyers to resume work, and called for reports from the DRT PO and the DRAT Chairperson regarding the tribunal's functioning.

Court Proceedings and Analysis

While the earlier petitions (7240/2022 & 7362/2022) were dismissed as infructuous on 16.01.2023 after work resumed at the DRT, the Court took specific cognizance of the allegations against the PO in the Bar Association's separate petition (7725/2022) on the same day.

The Central Government, in its counter-affidavit, indicated that it had previously asked the DRAT Chairperson (vide letter dated 15.12.2022) to examine the Bar Association's grievances as per Rule 9(1) of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, in light of the High Court's earlier orders. The DRAT Registrar responded (08.02.2023) stating that similar allegations were examined previously and a report submitted (in the context of petitions 7240/2022 & 7362/2022), leading the government to potentially view the matter as closed.

However, the High Court clarified a crucial distinction:

"We deem it appropriate to clarify that although the Court had summoned reports from the Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow and the Chairperson, DRAT, Allahabad in Writ-C No.7240 of 2022 and Writ-C No.7362 of 2022 as aforesaid; such reports were called for only with regard to functioning of the DRT and with regard to certain grievances raised by the DRT Bar Association, before the Chairperson DRAT regarding working of the Presiding Officer which had led to abstention from judicial work by them."

The Court noted that the specific examination of grievances under Rule 9(1) of the 2021 Rules, as directed by the Central Government on 15.12.2022, had not yet been conducted by the DRAT Chairperson.

The Court found that directing a formal preliminary scrutiny under the relevant rules would sufficiently address the petitioners' grievances.

Final Order and Implications

Disposing of Writ-C No. 7725 of 2022, the High Court issued the following directions:

The Chairperson DRAT, Allahabad , must submit a preliminary report under Rule 9(1) of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, concerning the allegations against Shri A.H. Khan , within four weeks .

The Central Government (Opposite party no.1) must take an appropriate reasoned decision on this report within four weeks thereafter.

The Court explicitly stated:

"We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the alleged Mis-behaviour/ Incapacity of the Opposite party no.4 in the judicial work he is performing."

This judgment underscores the procedural framework for investigating allegations against Presiding Officers of Tribunals and ensures that such complaints are formally examined as per the governing rules, distinct from inquiries solely focused on the operational functioning of the tribunal during periods of disruption like strikes.