A. RAMANATHAN Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant A. Ramanathan has been held guilty of professional misconduct and debarred from practice for a period of one year by the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu by its order dated Aug. 29, 1979 passed under Sec. 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. He preferred an appeal to the Bar Council of India under Sec. 37 of the Act. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dismissed the appeal by its order dated July 25, 1981. Hence, this appeal to this Court under Sec. 38 of the Act.

(2.) It appears that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India fixed the appeal for hearing at Madras on May 23, 1981 and its Registrar accordingly addressed a letter dated May 5, 1981 to Miss Lily Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant intimating her of the date and place of hearing. The letter was received by her junior Shri S.K. Arora on May 8, 1981 as Miss Lily Thomas had gone to Europe as the Supreme Court had closed for vacation on May 6,1981. He accordingly by his letter dated May 9, 1981 addressed to the Registrar sought an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal to the first week of Aug. i.e. after the reopening of the Supreme Court. On May 15, 1981 the appellant also moved an application for adjournment. When the appeal was called on for hearing on May 23, 1981, the appellant was present in person and renewed his prayer for adjournment till after vacation of the Supreme Court. The Disciplinary Committee however adjourned the hearing to the next day i.e. to May 24, 1981. On that day, arguments were partly heard and the appellant renewed his prayer for a short adjournment and the Committee adjourned the case to the day following. Hearing was concluded and the orders reserved. The Disciplinery Committee passed the order under appeal on July 25, 1981 upholding the order of the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.

(3.) Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant makes a grievance that the appellant was entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner of his choice, the charge of professional misconduct labelled against him being of a quasi-criminal nature, and contends that the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. He says that nothing would have been lost if the Disciplinary Committee had adjourned the appeal to a date in the first week of Aug., 1981 as there were several other matters fixed for hearing at Madras. There is, in our opinion, considerable force in his submission.