PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has called in question the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 11.4.1998 vide which he was punished by suspension from practice for one year with effect from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The circumstances which led to the filing of this appeal need a brief notice:

(2.) THE respondent is the complainant against the appellant -advocate. On 28.8.1991, he filed a complaint alleging that the appellant was doing "taxi business" and had at the relevant time four taxis in his ownership. It was alleged that since the appellant was practising as a lawyer, he could not have carried on the taxi business without the permission of the Bar Council and since no such permission had been obtained by him, he ·was guilty of committing professional misconduct. This complaint was filed initially with the State Bar Council but since it could not be disposed of within a period of one year from the date of the complaint, the same was transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36 -B of the Advocates Act, 1961 for its disposal. Before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, evidence was led on the issue, viz., "whether the respondent has committed professional misconduct, as mentioned in the complaint".

(3.) THE Disciplinary Committee, after considering the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for one year. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules reads as follows: