Court holds challenges to suspension and extension orders become infructuous after removal; review petition cannot serve as an appeal in disguise
In a significant ruling delivered on October 16, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Tejas Karia) dismissed the review petition filed by M.M. Dhonchak, a retired judicial officer, against the earlier judgment upholding his suspension, extension of suspension, and eventual removal from service as Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh.
Background:
Appellant M.M. Dhonchak was appointed Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh in February 2022. Following complaints from the DRT Bar Association alleging misbehaviour and procedural irregularities like inordinate adjournments, the appellant was suspended on February 13, 2024, and disciplinary proceedings initiated through a chargesheet dated February 26, 2024.
The appellant challenged the suspension order and the subsequent extension of the suspension in writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. However, during the pendency of these challenges, the disciplinary inquiry concluded, culminating in the removal order dated November 18, 2025.
High Court's Reasoning:
The court underscored that suspension pending inquiry is an interim measure to ensure an unhindered inquiry process. Once the disciplinary inquiry concludes with a removal order, challenges to the suspension and its extensions become infructuous since the removal supersedes and effectively nullifies the suspension orders.
Further, the appellant's claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% of the last drawn pay, though raised during the challenge to the extension order, was held to be incidental to the extension challenge. Since the extension order challenge was rendered infructuous by the removal, so too was the claim for enhanced subsistence allowance.
The Court emphasized the limited scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be invoked to re-assess the merits or substitute one view for another. The present review petition was found to be an attempt to relitigate issues already decided, effectively amounting to an appeal in disguise, which is impermissible.
Regarding the appellant's allegations of mala fides, forgery, and dishonesty in the chargesheet, the court observed that such merits-based disputes cannot be examined under writ jurisdiction unless there is a jurisdictional or procedural defect. These grounds were already considered and rejected by the learned Single Judge and affirmed in appeal.
The court also clarified that the appellant's contention that the removal order should not nullify challenges to the suspension and extension orders was untenable. The removal order is subject to separate proceedings pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and cannot be re-examined in the current review petition.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition with no order as to costs, upholding the principle that challenges to suspension and its extension orders become academic upon removal from service. The judgment reaffirms the limited scope of review jurisdiction and the separation of issues between suspension-related interim orders and final removal orders.
This decision is instructive for service law disputes involving suspension, disciplinary inquiries, and the interplay between interim relief and final orders.
Bottom Line:
Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise - Challenge to suspension and extension of suspension became infructuous after culmination of disciplinary proceedings in removal order - Claim for enhanced subsistence allowance, being incidental to challenge to extension order and without specific relief sought, also became infructuous.
Statutory provision(s):
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
M.M. Dhonchak v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998828
