The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by M.M. Dhonchak, a former Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT-II), Chandigarh, challenging an earlier judgment concerning his suspension. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Tejas Karia delivered the decision on October 16, 2026, finding no apparent error that justified reopening the matter.
Background
Dhonchak was appointed Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Chandigarh, on February 20, 2022. Following complaints by the DRT Bar Association alleging misbehaviour with lawyers and excessively long adjournments, he was suspended on February 13, 2024. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated through a chargesheet issued later that month.
He challenged the suspension, its subsequent extensions and related disciplinary proceedings before the Delhi High Court. After the inquiry report was submitted on June 3, 2025, Dhonchak was removed from service on November 18, 2025. He separately challenged the removal order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed his appeal against the rejection of his writ petitions. Dhonchak subsequently sought a review, arguing that the judgment had overlooked his written submissions, his claim for enhanced subsistence allowance and objections concerning the disciplinary proceedings.
The Bench explained that a review petition has a limited scope and cannot be used to rehear a case merely because a party disagrees with the earlier findings.
The judgment stated:
“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.”
On the subsistence allowance issue, Dhonchak argued that his allowance should have increased from 50% to 75% of his last-drawn pay after 90 days because the inquiry delay was not attributable to him. However, the Court noted that his earlier petition had not specifically sought enhancement of the allowance. Since the challenge to the suspension extension had become infructuous following his removal, the related claim could not be pursued through the review.
The Bench also clarified that the earlier judgment had considered the issues requiring determination and that the review proceedings could not be used to reassess their merits.
It further observed:
“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.”
The Court held that Dhonchak had not demonstrated an apparent error or another legally recognised ground for review. It also noted that challenges to the removal order, including objections concerning the inquiry, remained for consideration in the separate proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition without imposing costs.
Case Details
Case Title: M.M. Dhonchak v. Union of India
Case Number: Review Petition No. 469/2026 in LPA No. 703/2025
Judges: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Tejas Karia
Decision Date: October 16, 2026
