9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Punjab Haryana removing the name of the appellant from the State's Roll of Advocates under Section 35(3)(d) of the Act. 2. The appellant was enrolled with the State Bar Council as an Advocate on 16.9.1994 vide enrolment No. P/771/94. On 9.9.1995, the respondent-association made a written complaint to the State Bar Council making allegations of misconduct against the appellant. The State Bar Council took cognizance of the complaint and referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee. After the completion of the proceedings in D.C.E. No. 1/1996, order was passed by the Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council to remove the name of the appellant from the State Roll of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also subsequent to his enrolment. Since the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council did not go into the allegations of misconduct pertaining to the period prior to the date of enrolment, it is unnecessary to refer to them. 7. Accordingly to the complainant, the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct as he was carrying on and continued his business and business activities even after his enrolment as an Advocate, stating thus:- (i) He was running a photocopier documentation center in the court compound, Pathankot, and the space for the same was allotted to the appellant in his personal capacity on account of his being handicap; (ii) He was running a PCO/STD booth which was allotted in his name from the P T Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal. 9. In the impugned order, it is also noticed that the appellant submitted his application form for enrolment. Column No. 12 of the application form reads:- 12. Whether or not applicant engaged or has ever been engaged in any trade, business or profession, if so the nature of such trade, business/profession and the place where it is or was carried on. The answer submitted by appellant advocate is as under: No, not applicable. 10. According to the Disciplinary Committee of Bar council of India, the appellant had not only procured enrolment by submitting the false declaration but also suppressed the material fact; otherwise the appellant would not have been enrolled at all. In the said order, it is further stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no arrangement with the appellant regarding PCO. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he is still in the service of sugar mills, Dasuya. Hence, it was rightly concluded that STD/PCO business is being run by the appellant himself even after becoming an Advocate. RW-3. Shri Puran Chand Sharma, the father of the appellant in his evidence has admitted that the appellant is having his office in the same cabin where photocopier machine is installed. In the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, it is stated that the site of kiosk for running the photostat business is still in the name of the appellant and lease money is also being paid by the appellant and in the absence of the appellant giving intimation to the Department/authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or ill-will against the appellant. 13. It is to be further noticed that this Court on 26.2.1999 passed the following order:- Learned counsel for the appellant wants to file an affidavit in the form of an undertaking that the petitioner is not personally engaging himself in any of the family businesses, Adjourned for two weeks. 14. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant has filed affidavit/undertaking. Para 3 of the affidavit/undertaking reads:- I state on oath before this Hon'ble Court that since the day of my enrolment as an Advocate, I have not engaged myself in any business except my practice of law as an Advocate and I undertake before this Hon'ble Court that I shall not ever engage either actively or otherwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report from the learned Sub-Judge at Pathankot is received. 16. Pursuant to the same, the Sub-Judge submitted a report, which also goes against the appellant. 17. We are unable to say that the concurrent finding recorded by both the Disciplinary Committees against the appellant as to his professional misconduct, is a finding based on no evidence or is based on mere conjuncture and unwarranted inference. Hence the same cannot be disturbed. 18. What remains to be seen whether the punishment imposed on the appellant is grossly disproportionate. Having regard to the nature of misconduct and taking note of the handicap of the appellant, in our opinion, debarring him from practising for all time is too harsh. We consider it just and ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
