The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by a former Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh, challenging an earlier judgment that had rejected his plea against suspension and the extension of his suspension.

The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Tejas Karia held that no error apparent on the face of the record had been established to warrant a review of the earlier judgment.

The Court noted that the disciplinary proceedings against the officer had culminated in his removal from service, rendering his challenge to the suspension orders infructuous.

The case arose after complaints by the DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh, alleging misbehaviour by the officer with members of the Bar and inordinately long adjournments. Following the complaints, the Centre suspended him on February 13, 2024, and initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a chargesheet.

The officer challenged the suspension order, the chargesheet and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer before the High Court. He also challenged the extension of his suspension, contending that his subsistence allowance had not been increased beyond 50% of his last-drawn pay.

The Single Judge dismissed his pleas in September 2025. A Division Bench subsequently dismissed his appeal in August 2026, holding that the challenges to the suspension orders had become infructuous after his removal from service. The officer then approached the Court seeking a review of the appellate judgment.

Before the Division Bench, the officer argued that the earlier judgment had failed to consider his written submissions and material pleadings, including his claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance. He also contended that the challenges to his suspension orders survived his removal from service because the orders had distinct legal consequences.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court observed that a review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. It explained that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is limited to cases involving the discovery of new and important evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record.

“An error apparent must be self-evident and discernible without elaborate reasoning,” the Court observed, adding that review proceedings cannot be used to reassess the merits of a case or substitute one possible view for another.

The Court further noted that suspension pending an inquiry is an interim measure intended to facilitate disciplinary proceedings. Once the inquiry culminated in the officer's removal from service, 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,” it said.

The Court also clarified that the officer's challenge to his removal from service was pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and that the grounds relating to the inquiry report could be considered in those proceedings.

As such, the Court dismissed the review petition.

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.