BAPURAO PAKHIDDEY Vs. SUMAN DONDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us is an Advocate. He was also the treasurer of the Welfare Society for the Handicapped, Scheduled Caste and Backward People (Regd), New Delhi. A complaint was lodged by Smt. Suman Dondey in her capacity as the Hony. Secretary of the society to the Bar Council of Delhi against the appellant alleging that in the year 1978-79 he had received monies but he did not account for the same but had used the same for his private ends. THE appellant raised an objection on a notice issued to him that the complaint against him is not maintainable under Section 35 of the Advocates Act as there is no nexus between the profession as an Advocate and his activities as a treasurer of a society. THE objection raised by the appellant was rejected by the Bar Council of Delhi inasmuch as if an Advocate is guilty of other misconduct also he would be liable for action in terms of Section 35 of Advocates Act and the words "other misconduct" need not be read sui generis with the words "professional misconduct." So far as the receipt of the money by the appellant there is not much dispute. THE appellant admitted that he was a treasurer for the period aforesaid of the said Society and during that period he had encashed cheques to the sums of Rs. 3,000.00, Rs. 10,500.00 and Rs. 8,000.00 and he admitted that he was present at the time of distribution of the money to the said grants to the beneficiaries. His defence is that he had repaid the amounts or accounted for the same. He filed a statement of account in which certain sums of money said to have been received from him were mentioned in the account of the Secretary, Smt. Suman Dondey. Inasmuch as entries had been made in her ledger account, the amounts in the appellant's account were missing and that is why certain observations have been made by the auditor in that connection. THEreafter the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and he was ultimately punished by an order made on 27/04/1992 which was communicated to the appellant on 18/08/1992. He is aggrieved by the action taken by the Bar Council of India as he was suspended from practice for a period of three years. That order is under appeal before us.

(2.) THE principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellant in the course of these proceedings is that the matter has been heard on 17/07/1988 initially by a Committee comprising of S/Shri S.N. Tandon, N.K. Jain and P.V. Shetty. THEreafter the matter was called before another committee comprising of S/Shri Sardindu Biswas, P.P. Hiremath and V.Y. Halappa, when he filed his written arguments and stated that the same may be treated as his arguments. Again orders were reserved but on 26/04/1992 the appellant was again summoned by another Committee consisting of different members and he desired to address them orally also and he was present in person. However, the Committee gave him no opportunity to address them and simply reserved the matter for judgment. We need not examine this contention in the view we propose to take in this case.

(3.) IN the result, we set aside the order made by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of INdia and exonerate him of the charges. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.Appeal allowed.