9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Negligence leading to ex parte decrees in two cases. 2. Determining if negligence amounts to professional misconduct. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves appeals arising from a common order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India regarding two cases of the appellant transferred due to delay. The first case involved an ex parte decree against the State government due to the appellant's failure to file a fresh Memo of Appearance. The second case resulted in another ex parte decree due to the appellant's office not putting up papers, despite receiving summons and instructions. The Bar Council noted mitigating circumstances, including staff negligence and lack of communication, leading to a "lighter" punishment of severe reprimand considering the appellant's reputation. 2. The issue of whether negligence amounts to professional misconduct was deliberated. The Bar Council acknowledged the appellant's failure to control his office and staff negligence, leading to ex parte decrees for clients. However, there was no finding of deliberate inaction or malice. The judgment cited precedents emphasizing that negligence alone does not constitute professional misconduct unless accompanied by moral delinquency. The appellant's negligence, attributed to workload and staff shortcomings, was deemed not to amount to professional misconduct, considering the absence of moral turpitude. The Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing the lack of moral delinquency and the presence of mitigating circumstances in the appellant's conduct.
|
