2019 (7) TMI 2004 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of Chairperson DRAT to take up suo moto proceedings. It is contended by the respondent that since the settlement had been arrived at between the borrower and the bank without the Presiding Officer having any role to play the proceedings initiated against him would fall under the rare case where the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would exercise its jurisdiction which the learned Single Judge did and there is no infirmity in the same. HELD THAT - Perusal of Section 33 shows that the rationale of the protection given under the said Section is in line with the ratio of the judgments referred above. In case a Central Government Officer or a Presiding Officer of the Tribunal or the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal take any action which is in good faith needless to say he cannot be and should not be subjected to any prosecution or legal proceedings. If to hold otherwise then no court or tribunal would be able to function independently and without any bias or pressures. In the present case the ratio of the above judgments applies with greater vigor as this was the case where by bank had itself entered into a settlement as they were unable to get proper value of the property on auctioning. If two parties to a litigation or a inter se dispute arrive at a settlement then de hors the fact that the amount in dispute was higher than what is actually settled the courts have no option but to give effect to the settlement to close the case. In fact the latest trends of courts have been to settle the matters as far as possible through mediation or otherwise. It would indeed be a travesty of justice if the respondent who only gave effect to a mutual settlement between the parties is charge sheeted for doing his bona fide duty and closing the case solely on the basis of the settlement. The learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the charge sheet and there are no infirmity in the impugned judgment - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exemption from filing requirements.
2. Condonation of delay in re-filing and filing the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).
3. Validity of the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings against the respondent.
4. Jurisdiction and propriety of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in initiating suo moto proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption from Filing Requirements:
The court allowed the exemption application subject to all just exceptions, disposing of the application accordingly.

2. Condonation of Delay in Re-filing and Filing the LPA:
The appellant sought condonation for a 38-day delay in re-filing and a 172-day delay in filing the LPA. The court condoned the 38-day delay without opposition. However, the 172-day delay was contested. The appellant argued that the delay was due to procedural steps, including awaiting a legal opinion and internal deliberations. The court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Office of the Chief Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr., found the explanation insufficient and the application vague. Despite this, the court condoned the delay after hearing the matter on merits.

3. Validity of the Charge-sheet and Subsequent Proceedings:
The respondent challenged the charge-sheet issued less than two months before the end of his tenure as Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), alleging unauthorized withdrawal of Recovery Certificates (RCs) in a settled case. The court noted that the DRAT had taken suo moto action based on a complaint, but the bank involved had supported the settlement, citing insurmountable difficulties in auctioning the mortgaged property and adherence to the bank's recovery policy.

The appellant argued that the courts should not interfere with disciplinary proceedings at the charge-sheet stage, citing Union of India & another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana. The respondent countered that there was no allegation of coercion or improper conduct in the settlement process. The court, referencing Ramesh Chander Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad and other precedents, emphasized that disciplinary action against judicial officers should be based on strong grounds of mala fides or illegality, not merely on errors of judgment.

4. Jurisdiction and Propriety of DRAT in Initiating Suo Moto Proceedings:
The court highlighted that the DRAT is not competent to initiate suo moto proceedings, referencing judgments in Smt. Harpreet Kaur and another Vs. M/s Fullerton India Credit company Ltd., and Padam Singhee and another Vs. M/s SVOGL Oil, Gas and Energy Ltd. & others. The court reiterated that the DRAT's role is to adjudicate disputes arising under the statute, not to act as an auditor of settlements between banks and borrowers.

Conclusion:
The court found no allegations of corruption or mala fides against the respondent and upheld the learned Single Judge's decision to quash the charge-sheet. The court emphasized the importance of protecting judicial officers from undue harassment and victimization, especially when acting in good faith. The appeal was dismissed as without merit, and the related applications were also dismissed.