Cloud Created On Working Of The Entire Tribunal: Allahabad HC Directs CBI Inquiry Into Allegations Of Misbehaviour By Presiding Officer Of DRT Lucknow
The Allahabad High Court directed a CBI inquiry into allegations of “Mis-behaviour/Incapacity” by a Presiding Officer of the DRT, Lucknow after observing that he acted in a manner that created a cloud on the working of the entire Tribunal.
The Court ordered the verification of the Debt Recovery Tribunal’s (DRT) records by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for taking steps to file a charge sheet against the persons concerned. The Petition filed by the Bank of Baroda (Petitioner) raised concerns about the manner in which Orders were passed by the Tribunal shortly before the Presiding Officer's superannuation.
A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia stated, “In the present case clearly prior to the date of superannuation, the Presiding Officer acted in a manner so as to create a cloud on the working of the entire Tribunal as has also been observed by this court in respect of the specific instances in the detailed order dated 08.07.2024 extracted above particularly in para 11 of the said order.”
Advocate Prashant Kumar Srivastava appeared for the Petitioner, while CSC Apoorv Dev represented the Respondent.
The Petitioner alleged that the Presiding Officer had not sat on the date on which the disputed order was recorded. The corrigendum order allegedly altered the date of the original order. However, the Petitioner contended that this corrigendum was not found in the certified copies of the records received. Additionally, the cause list also did not list the matter for pronouncement of orders. These discrepancies formed the basis of the Petitioner’s assertion of mala fides and material irregularities.
The Court took note of a report submitted by the Registrar of DRT, Lucknow, which stated that the corrigendum order was dictated by a stenographer engaged on an outsourced basis. The original order was not dictated to the Private Secretary or Stenographer, as confirmed by the Registrar. The report further revealed that the corrigendum order was not uploaded on the e-DRT portal but remained a part of the record file. The Presiding Officer of the DRT had already retired by then.
The Court observed that under the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993, and the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunals are expected to function in a fair and reasonable manner to balance the rights of borrowers and guarantors with the objective of expeditious recovery of banking dues. “Any dent/ shadow cast upon the manner of working of the Tribunal has the effect of subverting the object with which the Act was enacted and thus it is expected, that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal would act fairly and reasonably while discharging their functions,” it remarked.
Consequently, the Court directed, “Considering the serious allegations (verified in the Registrar's report) with regard to the passing of the order dated 18.09.2024 and the corrigendum order dated 27.09.2024 levelled against the Presiding Officer and series of such complaints, as highlighted in the two orders passed by this Court on the earlier occasions, extracted above, I deem it appropriate to direct the C.B.I. Inquiry into the matter.”
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter for hearing on December 10th, 2024.
Cause Title: Bank of Baroda v. Debt Recovery Tribunal & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Prashant Kumar Srivastava
Respondent: CSC Apoorv Dev; Advocate Ashish Chaturvedi