Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

Allahabad High Court Directs Detailed Inquiry into DRT Presiding Officer’s Conduct, Cites Need for Transparency"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chairperson of DRAT instructed to submit a preliminary report on allegations of misbehavior, nepotism, and procedural improprieties within four weeks.

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed a thorough inquiry into the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Lucknow. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra and Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, mandates the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) to scrutinize and report on allegations of misbehavior, nepotism, and procedural improprieties within four weeks. The Union Ministry of Finance is then required to take a reasoned decision based on the report.

The writ petition was filed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association through its Secretary, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, seeking a detailed inquiry into the conduct of the DRT Presiding Officer. The Bar Association's allegations included claims of consistent misbehavior, nepotism, and arbitrary decision-making by the Presiding Officer, Shri A.H. Khan, leading to a strike by the Bar Association that significantly disrupted the Tribunal's functioning.

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency and accountability in judicial conduct. It noted previous petitions by private parties, which had raised similar concerns about the Presiding Officer. "Reasoned and transparent decision-making is crucial in judicial conduct inquiries," the Court observed, underscoring the need for a thorough examination of the allegations.

The Court acknowledged the detrimental impact of the strike by the Bar Association on the DRT's operations. The strike had led to a significant backlog of cases and hampered the delivery of justice. The Court directed the advocates to resume their work and cooperate with the judicial process, noting that subsequent orders led to the disposal of a substantial number of cases. "Continuous judicial functioning is vital for protecting the interests of litigants," the Court stated.

The judgment highlighted the role of the Central Government in addressing the grievances raised by the Bar Association. It directed the Chairperson, DRAT, to submit a preliminary report on the Presiding Officer’s conduct within four weeks and instructed the Central Government to make a reasoned decision based on this report within four weeks thereafter. The Court reinforced the statutory obligations under the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021.

The Court extensively discussed the legal framework governing the inquiry into judicial conduct. It referred to Section 15(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and relevant rules under the DRT (Procedure for Investigation of Misbehavior or Incapacity of Presiding Officer) Rules, 2010, and Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021. The judgment emphasized that a thorough and unbiased inquiry is necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Hon'ble Justice Sangeeta Chandra remarked, "The allegations of misbehavior and procedural improprieties warrant a detailed and impartial scrutiny to maintain the credibility of the judicial system." Justice Shree Prakash Singh added, "The continuous judicial functioning of the Tribunal is paramount, and any disruptions must be addressed promptly and effectively."

The Allahabad High Court's directive for a detailed inquiry into the conduct of the DRT Presiding Officer underscores the judiciary's commitment to transparency and accountability. By mandating a preliminary scrutiny and a reasoned decision from the Central Government, the judgment aims to reinforce the legal framework governing judicial conduct. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on the functioning of tribunals, ensuring that allegations of misconduct are addressed with the seriousness they deserve.

 

Date of Decision: 8th July 2024

Debt Recovery Tribunal vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Others

 

Similar News