RAVI KUMAR MATHUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the two writ petitions filed by two Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunal at Delhi. Both the petitions raise the same questions of law and fact. Accordingly, they are taken up for disposal together.

(2.) For facts I will first refer to WP(C) 11617/2006. The petitioner herein is Mr.Ravi Kumar Mathur, Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal-II. He is a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS). By virtue of a notification dated 29.8.2003 he was appointed Presiding Officer of DRT-II for a fixed period of five years or till he attained the age of 62, whichever was earlier. The notification was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division). The notification reads as under:

(3.) The petitioner alleged that he had come to know that respondent no.1 had issued a letter to the respondent no.2 viz. the Registrar, High Court of Rajasthan for repatriating the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that he was appointed for a fixed tenure of 5 years or till he attained the age of 62 years and, therefore, he could not be recalled by respondent no.2 and his services could not be terminated by respondent no.1 before the expiry of the tenure of his appointment. It is submitted that in case the petitioner is sent back to the RHJS, he would be made to retire w.e.f. 31.8.2006 and that will prejudice him as in the tenure post he can continue for another two years. The petitioner bases his claim on Section 15 of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which, inter alia, provides that the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal shall not be removed from his office except by an order made by the Central Government on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after an enquiry. The petitioner's case is that without complying with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act he cannot be removed from the post of Presiding Officer of a Debt Recovery Tribunal and if any such order is passed, that will be liable to be set aside and quashed. It is also submitted by the petitioner that respondent no.1 has not served any copy of the letter repatriating the petitioner and that no opportunity of being heard has been given to him and that, as such, the order of repatriation is violative of law and principles of natural justice. The petitioner says that the petitioner cannot be treated as an Officer on deputation and, therefore, cannot be recalled by respondent no.2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are (a) Set aside and quash the impugned order/memorandum/letter issued by respondent no.1, being illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, void and violative of the provisions of the Act; and (b) Set aside and quash the impugned order/memorandum/letter issued by respondent no.2, in furtherance to order/memorandum/letter issued by respondent no.1 or taken suo moto by respondent no.2, being illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, void and violative of the provisions of the Act.