Allegations of Nepotism and Corruption Against Presiding Officer, DRT Lucknow: High Court's Directive

The Allahabad High Court has addressed allegations of nepotism and corruption against Mr. A. H. Khan, the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Lucknow. These allegations were brought forward by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association, which claimed that Mr. Khan had been arbitrary and whimsical in passing orders and had not adhered to established legal procedures. The Court's directives highlight the gravity of these allegations and the steps being taken to address them.

Background of the Allegations

The petition filed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association against Mr. Khan included accusations of nepotism and corruption. The Bar Association alleged that Mr. Khan's actions were arbitrary and did not follow due process. These allegations led to the lawyers of the Bar Association abstaining from work, which, in turn, caused suffering for litigants who had pending cases at the DRT.

Court's Initial Response

Upon receiving the petition, the Allahabad High Court observed that the abstention of lawyers was causing hardship for litigants. The Court initially directed the Bar Association to cooperate with the DRT proceedings, emphasizing that any grievances should be addressed to the Chairman of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). Following this directive, the court noted that the functioning of the DRT had resumed and that cases were being disposed of.

Advisory from DRAT Chairman

The DRAT Chairman had advised Mr. Khan to treat all lawyers equally and to maintain amicable court proceedings. This advice was aimed at mitigating the tensions between the Presiding Officer and the Bar Association. The High Court noted these developments and declared the initial writ petitions as infructuous, indicating that no further orders were required at that stage.

Seeking Detailed Responses

Despite these steps, the High Court recognized the seriousness of the allegations against Mr. Khan and sought detailed responses from all respondents. The Court called for a counter affidavit to be filed by the respondents, providing specific responses to the allegations of nepotism and corruption.

Central Government's Involvement

The Central Government, in response to the Bar Association's grievances, had instructed the Chairman of the DRAT Allahabad to investigate the allegations under Rule 9(1) of the Tribunal (Condition of Services) Rules, 2021. However, the Chairman did not comply with this instruction, prompting the High Court to intervene further.

High Court's Directive for Preliminary Scrutiny

The bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh directed the Central Government to insist on a preliminary scrutiny of the allegations against Mr. Khan. This scrutiny is to be conducted under the provisions of the Tribunal (Condition of Services) Rules, 2021. The Court emphasized the need for a detailed report to be submitted to the Central Government, ensuring a thorough investigation into the claims.

Legal Framework and Implications

The High Court's directive is grounded in the legal framework provided by the Tribunal (Condition of Services) Rules, 2021. Rule 9(1) outlines the procedures for addressing grievances and allegations against tribunal officials. By invoking this rule, the Court ensures that the investigation follows a structured and legally sound process. The outcome of this investigation could have significant implications for the functioning of the DRT and the accountability of its officials.

Case Title and Citation

The case is titled Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Thru. Its Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava v. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Financial Services Thru. Secy. And 3 Others, registered under Writ - C No. 7725 of 2022. This case highlights the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies by addressing allegations of misconduct and ensuring accountability.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court's directive to investigate the allegations of nepotism and corruption against Mr. A. H. Khan underscores the judiciary's commitment to transparency and accountability. By calling for a detailed report and involving the Central Government, the Court ensures that the allegations are thoroughly scrutinized. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to due process and maintaining the integrity of judicial institutions.

The detailed investigation and the subsequent report will be crucial in determining the veracity of the allegations and ensuring that justice is served. The High Court's proactive approach in addressing these serious allegations sets a precedent for handling similar cases in the future, reinforcing the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community