M.M. Dhonchak, vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

* 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

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.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:44:42
LPA 703/2025 Page 1 of 8


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


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:44:42
LPA 703/2025 Page 2 of 8


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.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:44:42
LPA 703/2025 Page 3 of 8


6. The Appellant has contended that the Judgment has failed to address
the grounds challenging the chargesheet, including allegations of forgery,
dishonesty and mala fides , and did not adequately evaluate the documentary
evidence or give reasons. Reliance was placed on Mahabir Prasad Santosh
Kumar v. State of U.P. , (1970) 1 SCC 764, Woolcombers of India Ltd. v.
Woolcombers Workers Union , (1974) 3 SCC 318, Union of India v. Mohan
Lal Capoor , (1973) 2 SCC 836, Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran v.
State of Kerala , (1979) 4 SCC 782, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax
Officer, Rourkela-I Circle , (2008) 9 SCC 407, and Mohinder Singh Gill v.
Chief Election Commissioner , (1978) 1 SCC 405, on the requirement of
reasoned orders and the rule that an order must stand on the reasons stated
therein.
7. The Appellant placed reliance on Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food , [1968] 1 All ER 694, Sharp v. Wakefield , [1891] AC
173, Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union , [1971] 1 All ER 1148,
Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal , (1990) 2 SCC 746, and Satish
Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2007) 3 SCC 62, on rational exercise of
discretion, natural justice, and the necessity of reasons.
8. In view of the foregoing, the Appellant has prayed that the present
Review Petition be allowed and the Judgment be reviewed.
9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the
Appellant-in-person and perused the material placed on record.
10. 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


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:44:42
LPA 703/2025 Page 4 of 8


applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced when the order was passed,
or upon an error apparent on the face of the record.
11. An error apparent must be self-evident and discernible without
elaborate reasoning. Review is not an appellate jurisdiction and cannot be
invoked to reassess the merits or substitute one possible view for another. A
review petition cannot become an appeal in disguise.
12. The Appellant alleges errors apparent on the face of the record on the
following grounds: (i) non-consideration of the pleadings and written
arguments; (ii) failure to address the claim for enhanced subsistence
allowance; (iii) the finding that the challenges to the Suspension Order and
the Extension Order became infructuous upon the Removal Order; (iv) the
effect of the order dated 26.11.2025 not having been considered; and (v) the
absence of reasons on the challenge to the chargesheet.
13. As regards the alleged non-consideration of the pleadings and written
arguments, the Judgment has adequately addressed all the issues arising for
determination by recording its own reasons and affirming the reasons given
by the learned Single Judge. The Judgment has considered whether the
challenges to the Suspension Order and the Extension Order survived and
concluded that those challenges had become infructuous. Therefore, it was
not required to deal with each of the submissions challenging the Suspension
Order and the Extension Order and there is no error apparent on the face of
the record warranting review.
14. The submission of the Appellant regarding the subsistence allowance
was part of the challenge to the Extension Order, which extended the
Appellant’s suspension from 13.05.2024 to 09.11.2024. However, in W.P.(C)


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:44:42
LPA 703/2025 Page 5 of 8


8478/2024, the Appellant sought only the setting aside of the Extension Order
and reinstatement of the Appellant as Presiding Officer of the DRT. The
Appellant did not seek any specific relief for enhancement of subsistence
allowance. As the Judgment held that the challenge to the Extension Order
did not survive the Removal Order, the incidental claim of subsistence
allowance was likewise rendered infructuous.
15. The Judgment noted that the disciplinary proceedings had culminated
in the Removal Order, which is under challenge in CWP 6521/2026, and
accordingly held that the challenges to the Suspension Order and the
Extension Order had become infructuous. Suspension pending inquiry is an
interim measure intended to facilitate the unhindered conduct of disciplinary
proceedings, as recognised in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal ,
(2013) 16 SCC 147. Upon culmination of the inquiry in the Removal Order,
the Suspension Order ceased to operate independently. The Appellant’s
contention that the Suspension Order and the Extension Order should
nonetheless be examined separately seeks reconsideration of the Judgment on
merits, which is impermissible in review. The present Review Petition is,
therefore, in the nature of an appeal in disguise.
16. The grounds for challenging the Removal Order, including any
reservation regarding the inquiry report, shall be considered in CWP
6521/2026, which is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In
view of the subsequent events affecting the relief claimed in the Writ
Petitions, the Judgment held that such relief had been rendered infructuous.
17. The order dated 26.11.2025 was passed in the Appeal on the
Appellant’s request for early hearing following the Removal Order. It merely


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:44:42
LPA 703/2025 Page 6 of 8


recorded that the Appellant declined to challenge the Removal Order in the
Appeal and maintained that invalidation of the inquiry would automatically
nullify the Removal Order. The Court neither accepted that position nor held
that the challenges to the Suspension Order and the Extension Order survived.
On the contrary, early hearing was declined because the Appellant had already
been removed. Therefore, no issue was decided vide order dated 26.11.2025
that was inconsistent with the Judgment. Accordingly, the Appellant is not
entitled to seek review of the Judgment on this ground as well.
18. The remaining grounds, including those concerning the chargesheet,
have already been decided on merits by the learned Single Judge and have
been affirmed in the Judgment. Therefore, the Appellant is not entitled to seek
reconsideration of matters on merit that have already been decided. The
Judgment affirmed that the truth of the charges ordinarily cannot be examined
under Article 226 of the Constitution and found no jurisdictional defect in the
chargesheet. The learned Single Judge had also rejected the allegation of mala
fides . These findings cannot be reopened in review in absence of an error
apparent on the face of the record.
19. The Judgment records reasons for its conclusions in paragraphs 7 to 11.
The plea that those reasons are inadequate, or that the documentary evidence
warranted a different conclusion, amounts to a challenge to the Judgment on
merits and cannot be examined in review.
20. The Appellant has failed to establish any error apparent on the face of
the record or any other ground for review. The Review Petition merely seeks
reconsideration of findings already rendered in the Judgment, which is
impermissible.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:44:42
LPA 703/2025 Page 7 of 8


21. Accordingly, no ground for review is made out. The Review Petition is
dismissed, with no order as to costs.

TEJAS KARIA, J


VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026
VN / SZ


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:44:42
LPA 703/2025 Page 8 of 8