IN RE: CH. RAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CH . Ram Singh having been duly enfolded as a Pleader started practising somewhere a 1948 at and, In the month of Jan. 1951 he elected a member of the local legislative assembly and as he was later included in the Council of Ministers of Patiala & East Punjab States Union, the operation of his licence was ended by the order of the High Court dated 1952. On 12 -3 -1953 Ch. Ram Singh applied for the restoration of his licence because he had ceased to be Minister & wanted to resume practice at the Before any order could be passed on Ch. Singh's application, it was brought to my notice that not only the election of Ch. Ram Singh as a member of the legislative assembly of the State had been set aside but he had been disqualified for being a member of Parliament or Legislature of any State for a period of six years because he was guilty of major corrupt practices. As a perusal of the order of the Election Tribunal which was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II Section 3 dated 21st and 1953 (pages 477 to 491) showed that the Tribunal had held that he had inter alia made false statement and further that he did not act in an honest, straightforward and upright manner, the Justice ordered a notice to issue to him to Show cause why he should not be dismissed and debarred from practicing as a pleader. The for -M'l11954 Pepsu/11 and 12 I charge framed against Ch. Ram Singh is appendix A Of this order. After Ch. Ram Singh submitted his written reply the enquiry into the matter was entrusted to the Bench.

(2.) THE enquiry is under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act which lays down that High Court may after such enquiry as it thinks fit suspend or dismiss any pleader or mukhtar holding a certificate who is adjudged guilty of any of the acts enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of the Section or for any other reasonable cause under Clause (f) of the Section. The words of Clause (f) are very wide. It was once held by the Calcutta High Court that the clause must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses, but a different view was taken by the Madras High Court in - In the matter of A.G. Ganapathi Sastri and T. V. KrishnaswamiIyer, 19 MLR 504 (A) and since then almost all the High Courts in India have expressed the view that the words "for Anr. sufficient cause" are not limited to misconduct of a strictly professional character and that the operation of Clause (f) Section 13 is not confined to misconduct of which a practitioner may be found guilty in his professional capacity but embrace all cases which may afford reasonable grounds for a suspension or dismissal.

(3.) VARIOUS allegations were made against the Respondent in the election petition, but in this enquiry we are concerned only with those that were the subject matter of issues Nos. 1 and 2, framed by the Commission. The issues are: