Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Association Pathankot  Insc 578 (31 October 2001)
Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil Shivaraj V. Patil J.
appellant has filed this appeal, under Section 38 of The Advocates Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act) against the judgment and order dated
4.11.1998 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India,
confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of
Punjab & Haryana removing the name of the appellant from the States Roll of
Advocates under Section 35(3)(d) of the Act.
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
the Advocates and the same was confirmed by the Disciplinary Committee of the
Bar Council of India, in appeal.
learned senior counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the
allegations made in the complaint were not established or proved, judged by the
standard of proof required in a case like this; the appellant was not actually
carrying on business and the evidence on this point was not properly
appreciated; at any rate, the punishment imposed on the appellant is grossly
disproportionate even assuming that the misconduct was proved.
contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent made submissions
supporting the impugned order. He drew our attention to the evidence brought on
record to show how the findings recorded against the appellant are justified.
He also strongly contended that the misconduct of the appellant before and even
after filing of the appeals before the Bar Council of India and this Court in
continuing the business cannot be condoned; further in spite of giving
undertaking before this Court, he is still continuing his business as is
supported by the report of the Sub-judge made to this Court. According to him,
the punishment imposed on the appellant is proper in the absence of any good
ground to take any lenient view.
have carefully considered these submissions.
complaint contained allegations of misconduct against the appellant for the
period prior to the date of enrolment as an Advocate and 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.
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:-
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;
He was running a PCO/STD booth which was allotted in his name from the P&T
Department under handicap quota;
was proprietor/General Manager of the Punjab Coal Briquettes, Pathankot, a
private concern and he was pursuing the business/his interest in the said
business even on the date when his statement was recorded by the Disciplinary
Committee on 12.5.1996.
of the appellant was that although he was running business prior to his
enrolment, he did not continue the same after his enrolment as an Advocate and
he ceased to have any business interest, and that it is his father and brother
who were carrying on the business after he became an Advocate under some oral
arrangement. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, after
considering the evidence placed on record both oral and documentary, recorded a
finding that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct in carrying on
business in the aforementioned concerns even after his enrolment as an Advocate
and passed order to remove his name from the States Roll of Advocates under
Section 35(3)(d) of the Act and debarred him from practising as an Advocate.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, in the appeal filed by
the appellant on re- appreciation of the material on record, concurred with the
finding recorded by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council and
held that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and that the
punishment imposed on him debarring the appellant from practising for all time
was just. Hence, dismissed the appeal.
impugned order, it is also noticed that the appellant submitted his application
form for enrolment. Column No. 12 of the application form reads:-
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:
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 that as a matter of fact, besides it being the case of
misconduct, it is also a case where the name of the appellant could be removed
for suppressing the material fact; anyhow since the reference had not been made
for the same, it is left open to the State Bar Council to take such action
under Section 26 of the Act.
Manohar Lal, Senior Telecommunication Office Assistant, has deposed that
STD/PCO has been allotted to appellant on 6.4.1992 in the handicap quota and
the same is continuing in the name of the appellant as per the record even
after his enrolment as an Advocate; no intimation was given by the appellant to
the Department to transfer STD/PCO in the name of his brother Satish Mohan.
CW-3, Shri Vipin Tripathi, a clerk in the office of S.D.O. in his evidence has
stated that space for kiosk for installation of photocopy machine on payment of
Rs.120/- per month, was allotted on lease basis on 6.5.1991 by Dy. Commissioner,
Gurdaspur, to the appellant in handicap quota; there was no intimation to
change lease in favour of anybody and there is no transfer of lease in favour
of any other person; the lease amount is paid even after appellants enrolment
as an Advocate in his name. CW-3, H.S. Pathania, in his evidence has supported
the allegations made in the complaint. The appellant in his evidence has stated
that he has no concern with the business of STD/PCO and Photostat machine.
RW-2, Satish Mohan, the brother of the appellant has stated that he has 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/authorities concerned regarding
handing over of business to Shri Puran Chand Sharma or Satish Mohan, the
assertion regarding the oral agreement was not believed by the Disciplinary
Committee of the State Bar Council and rightly so in our opinion. The
Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council in its order has objectively
considered the evidence brought on record. As already stated above, the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India on re-appreciation of the evidence has
concurred with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Committee of the State
Bar Council based on oral and documentary evidence.
perused both the orders and the evidence placed on record, we are of the view
that the finding recorded holding the appellant guilty of professional
misconduct is supported by and based on cogent and convincing evidence even
judged by the standard required to establish misconduct as required to prove a
charge in a quasi criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any
merit in the argument that the misconduct alleged against the appellant was not
properly proved by the standard required to prove such a misconduct. There is
also no merit in the contention that the evidence was not properly appreciated
by both the Disciplinary Committees; nothing was brought on record to discredit
the evidence led on behalf of the complainant and no material was placed to
support the allegation of the appellant that the members of the
respondent-Association had any grudge or ill-will against the appellant.
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.
for two weeks.
to the said order, the appellant has filed affidavit/undertaking. Para 3 of the
affidavit/ undertaking reads:- I state on oath before this Honble 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 Honble
Court that I shall not ever engage either actively or otherwise, in any other
business or profession while I continue my enrolment as an Advocate.
order made by this Court on 2.9.1999 reads:- Mr. Sudhir Walia, learned counsel
appearing for the Bar Association, Pathankot placed before us the photographs
of the cabin where the photocopying machine is installed. The photograph
discloses the name board of the petitioner and also an inscription in Punjabi
language Bhupindra Photostat Centre. The learned counsel appearing for the Bar
Association, Pathankot says that these photographs placed before us have been
taken yesterday only. It is contended that, therefore, the undertaking filed in
this Court that the petitioner was not conducting any business in his name,
could not be accepted.
fact is disputed by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
are, therefore, constrained to call for a report from the learned Sub-Judge at Pathankot
as to whether the cabin in which the photocopying machine is installed
contains, apart from the name board of the petitioner an inscription Bhupindra
Photostat Centre and whether such inscription was there till yesterday and is
continuing as of today. The learned Sub-Judge shall also furnish the details
regarding the allotment of the place within the Court compound wherein this
cabin has been put up. The report will be submitted within four weeks from
today. A copy of this order will be sent to the learned Sub-Judge at Pathankot
the matter after the report from the learned Sub-Judge at Pathankot is
to the same, the Sub-judge submitted a report, which also goes against the
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.
remains to be seen is 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 appropriate to modify the
punishment to debar the appellant from practising upto end of December, 2006.
Except the modification of punishment as stated above, the impugned order
remains undisturbed in all other respects. The appeal is disposed of in the
above terms. No costs.
V. Patil] October 31,