Nagpur: In an extraordinary order carrying serious observations against a judicial officer, Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Thursday recommended immediate removal of presiding officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur, holding that he lacked “basic knowledge of legal jurisprudence”, displayed bias against borrowers and was not fit to continue in office.A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode passed the order while disposing of a contempt petition filed against the DRT presiding officer, Pankaj Kumar, for alleged wilful disobedience of its earlier direction to decide a securitisation application within a stipulated period. “We are completely satisfied that he does not deserve to continue on the post even for a single day,” the judges said.The bench noted that after issuing contempt notice, it chose to hear Kumar in chambers, considering that he was a senior judicial officer. “We find that he is not at all aware as to what is the essence of a presiding officer of a judicial or quasi-judicial Tribunal.”The judges also noted that Kumar believed borrowers who defaulted on bank dues “did not deserve any relief” and that last-minute interlocutory applications should not be decided.The court referred to its earlier orders raising concerns over the functioning of the tribunal, observing that applications filed well before scheduled possession dates were repeatedly adjourned until borrowers were forced to seek urgent intervention from HC. It noted that despite earlier communications by deputy solicitor general of India, Kartik Shukul, to Union govt’s Department of Financial Services highlighting Kumar’s conduct, no effective action had been taken.The contempt proceedings arose from a petition in which HC had, on Nov 14, 2025, directed DRT to decide a securitisation application within six months. Instead, when the matter came up on March 24, 2026, Kumar adjourned it to Oct 21, 2026, beyond the deadline fixed by HC.When questioned, Kumar told the bench that the parties had remained absent, making it impossible to decide the matter. After examining the tribunal’s roznama, HC found that the order itself recorded the presence of counsel for both parties.“The respondent not only lacks judicial knowledge but has also tendered an incorrect and false explanation before this court,” the bench observed.Holding that contempt proceedings alone would not address the larger issue, the judges recommended that Union govt remove Kumar from the post, “with immediate effect”. If removal was not feasible, it recommended his immediate transfer.The court directed Union govt counsel – Kartik Shukul and Anup Gilda – to implement the order and submit a compliance report by Sept 4, 2026, when the contempt petition will be listed again to monitor compliance.
