The Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the conduct of a former presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Lucknow [Bank Of Baroda v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow].
Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order after taking note of a series of complaints against AH Khan concerning the manner in which he had conducted DRT proceedings in certain cases just before his retirement.
"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. The Investigating Officer of the C.B.I. will be duly authorized to verify the record of the D.R.T. Lucknow specifically the records as are mentioned in the Division Bench Order, whereby an inquiry was ordered and if anything wrong is found, the C.B.I. shall take steps for filing charge sheet against the persons concerned for prosecution in accordance with law," the Court ordered.
The allegations against the former DRT officer include that he passed an order on September 18 without conducting any proper hearing on the said day. Later, just prior to his retirement on September 27 this year, he is said to have issued a corrigendum clarifying that the order of September 18 is to be read as an order passed on September 24.
The Bank of Baroda moved a petition before the High Court highlighting this discrepancy. The bank's counsel contended that the DRT case in focus was not listed for the pronouncement of orders on September 24. As such, no order could have been passed on the said date, the High Court was told.
The bank, therefore, contended that original September 18 order was not passed in bona fide manner and that the corrigendum was only issued to cover up the irregularity.
The Court noted that even the private stenographer to the Presiding Officer had confirmed that no order was dictated on September 18. Moreover, the September 27 corrigendum was also dictated to the stenographer on an "outsource basis", the Court observed, just before the Presiding Officer retired the same day.
The Court also noted that the conduct of this Presiding Officer has been under scanner in two earlier occasions as well when allegations of misbehaviour and favouritism were levelled against him. In those cases, the Court had ordered Central Government to examine the allegations.
Considering the entirety of circumstances, the Court was of the view that the Presiding Officer has acted in a manner that prima facie demonstrated his actions to be not in good faith.
"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 ... Presiding Officers are deemed to be government servants within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC and protection is also accorded to them for actions taken for good faith, however, the series of the incidents as highlighted and indicated above, prima facie, demonstrates that the actions were not in good faith," the Court observed while ordering a CBI enquiry into the officer's conduct.
The Court has directed the CBI to submit its report within 15 days. The matter will be heard next on December 10.
Advocate Prashant Kumar Srivastava appeared for the Bank of Baroda.
Advocates Apoorv Dev and Ashish Chaturvedi appeared for the DRT, Lucknow and other respondents.
[Read Order]