IRSHAD HUSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Application has been filed by Mr. Irshad Hussain, an Ex -Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT for short), Nagpur. His grievance is against Annexure A -1 Order No. 8/5/2010 -DRT issued to him by Respondent No. 1, an hour before the due date of his demitting the office on 11.04.2014 at 16.59 hours. According to the said order, his tenure as Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur was up to 14.04.2014 but 12th, 13th and 14th of April, 2014 were being holidays, he was demitting office on 11.04.2014 on completion of his tenure. Further, according to the said order, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(1993 Act for short) read with Rule 5 of The Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure of Investigation of Misbehaviour or Incapacity of Presiding Officer) Rules, 2010(2010 Rules for short) has decided to conduct an inquiry into the imputation of misbehaviour or incapacity. Consequently, the Central Government has decided that all pensionary benefits including encashment of leave etc. admissible to him shall be withheld and shall not be disbursed till completion and outcome of such enquiry. The aforesaid Section of the 1993 Act and Rule of 2010 Rules are reproduced as under: -

(2.) BRIEF facts: The Applicant was selected and appointed as Presenting Officer of DRT, Nagpur with effect from 08.09.2010. According to the appointment letter issued to him on 11.08.2010, his appointment was for a tenure of 5 years with effect from the date of his assumption of the charge of the post or till he attains the age of 62 years whichever is earlier. The aforesaid appointment letter was also notified in the Official Gazette vide Notification dated 23/24.09.2010. Accordingly, his term was expiring on 14.04.2014.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the Applicant received Office Memorandum F. No. 17/4/2001 -DRT dated 28.03.2014 stating that the reply dated 09.01.2014 received from the DRT was not found satisfactory and, therefore, Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria was requested to conduct inspection of DRT, Nagpur and to look into the functioning of the Presiding Officer. It has also been stated in the said Memorandum that he had committed certain irregularities in DRT, Nagpur and a complaint dated 24.01.2013 in that regard was received. It also refers to a report dated 13.03.2014 submitted by Mr. Justice Rajasuria in relation to inspection conducted by him on 11.03.2014. However, the copy of those complaint and report were not supplied to the Applicant. According to the report of Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria dated 13.03.2014, as per the aforesaid Memorandum the following administrative irregularities have been, prima facie, found to be established against the Applicant: -