KASTURI LAL Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint of Mr. Bachan Singh the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, ordered on 28.11.95 that Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate, District Courts, Chandigarh, should refund the remuneration of Rs.2500/- received by him from his client Bachan Singh and in case the aforesaid payment is not made within one month the complainant shall also be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum. Aggrieved against it, Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Bachan Singh was a Clerk in Post and Telegraph Department and there was a charge against him that Indira Vikas Patras valued at Rs.30,000/- were delivered by him to a wrong person and after inquiry the Senior Post Master, Chandigarh on 16.12.88 ordered recovery of the aforesaid amount from Bachan Singh. However, this recovery was to be made by instalment of Rs.520/- per month being 1/3rd of the salary of this employee. Bachan Singh attempted an appeal in Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and he had engaged Mr. Kasturi Lal as an Advocate for preparing, instituting and pursuing the appeal. A perusal of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.2.95 indicated that Mr. Kasturi Lal did not appear before the aforesaid Tribunal at the time of arguments. The appeal has been dismissed by a speaking and detailed order by the Tribunal. However, after perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal it is apparent that it was dismissed by detailed order and not on account of non-appearance of the Counsel. Bachan Singh approached the District Forum with the complaint because in the beginning of the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal there is an observation that Counsel for the appellant did not appear there on several occasions though the case was pending since 1989. Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate, the appellant has placed before us a copy of the proceedings of this appeal in the Tribunal. A perusal of this record shows that Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate for Bachan Singh was present in the Tribunal on 22.2.90 and after hearing him the appeal was admitted and it was adjourned for final hearing. On couple of occasions such as 10.9.91, 7.9.92 the appeal could not be heard because there was a strike by the local lawyers. On 7.9.92 the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Central Administrative Tribunal was as under: "7.9.92 Present: Counsel for the parties. Adjourned to sine die list. To be listed before the Bench for arguments as per turn. Sd/-Dy. Registrar"

(3.) Mr. Kasturi Lal has stressed that it was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal that besides his presence on earlier occasions he was present before the Tribunal even on 7.9.92 when this appeal was adjourned sine die. The proceedings dated 7.9.92 by which the case was adjourned sine die and other details were concealed by the complainant from the District Forum whereas all these facts have now been brought to our notice hereby the appellant. Thus Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate prepared the appeal and appeared before the Tribunal. It was on account of his performance that it was admitted and stay of recovery was also ordered. The appeal has been dismissed and disposed of by the learned Tribunal by a detailed judgment wherein all the pleas raised in the appeal have been dealt with. We hold that there was no deficiency on the part of Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate. The present appeal is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is hereby set-aside.