LexBALDEV SINGH DHINGRA AND OTHERS versus MADAN LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ ~ BALDEV SINGH DHINGRA AND OTHERS A v. MADAN LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS FEBRUARY 4, 1999 ). [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B r Advocates Act, 1961 : Sections 2(1)(a), 2(1)(k), 2(1)(n), 6, 17, 26A 3~Disciplinary Proceed- ings under section 35 against practising Advocate-Charge of misconduct c while acting as a Judge-Licence to practice su"endered-Name on the roll of the State Bar Council-Advocate not practising at the time of miscon- duct-No allegation of misconduct after resumption of practice-Held, Dis- ciplinary jurisdiction under section 35 cannot be invoked for misconduct allegedly committed by a non-practising Advocate. -..... D S.35---Disciplinary proceedings-Invocation of-WJ1ert-fleld, S. 35 can be invoked against a practising Advocate for professional or any other mis- conduct committed in his professional capacity. Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. E Chapter III, Rule 5'-Practising Advocate ceases to practice-Licence to practice su"endered-Name continues on the roll of the State Bar Coun- cil-Held, cannot be said to be an Advocate practising under the Advocates 4.ct, 1961. Rule 5-Permission to resume practice-No disqualification incu"ed F under section 24-A, Advocates Act-Held, non-practising Advocate cannot be refused permission to resume practice. Words & PhraseJ~'Prof essional misconduct', 'Other misconduct', 'Practising Advocate', 'Non-practising Advocate'-Meaning of in the context G -, . of 1dvocates Act, 1961. ~ Respondent No. 1 was enrolled as an Advocate in 1963 by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana under the provisions of the Advocates Act. He was selected as a Judicial Officer by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and he joined Judicial Service and got his licence to practice H 377 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A suspended. During his tenure Magistrate-cum-Sub-Judge 1st Class at Samrala in Ludhiana District of Punjab State, complaints of bribery and commission of other misconduct were made against him. Regular departmental inquiry was conducted against him and the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of offence punishable under section 5(1)(e) of the Preven- . tion of Corruption Act, 1947 as well as misconduct unbecoming of a B Judicial Officer. The State Government accepted the recommendation of the High Court and dismissed him from service. After the dismissal order, Respondent No. 1 requested the Chairman of the State Bar Council to permit him to resume practice as an Advocate which was accepted on 26.7.77 and since that date he has been practicing as an Advocate in the C Taluk Court at Samrala. This was objected to by members of the Samrala Bar. The Chairman of the State Bar Council confirmed the earlier order. Seven members of Samrala Bar including the present appellants filed Revision Petition before the Bar Council of India which was allowed with a direction to the State Bar Council to initiate appropriate disciplinary D proceedings against Respondent no.1. Proceedings under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 were registered as Disciplinary Case before the ap- propriate disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council against Respon- dent No.1. The Disciplinary Case stood statutorily transferred to the Bar Council of India on the expiry of the period of one year prescribed by law for finalisation of the case by the disciplinary committee of the State Bar E Council. The Bar Council of India dismissed the case. F Against the order passed by the Bar Council of India, the appellant- original complainants have filed the present appeal. The contention of the appellants was that Respondent No. 1 was guilty of 'misconduct' other than professional misconduct under section 35 (1) of the Act when he was found liable to be dismissed from Judicial Service on proved misconduct of corruption as at the time when the complaint was filed against him he was an Advocate on the roll of the State Bar Council and consequently, he was liable to be proceeded against; and G that it was not the case of the appellants that Respondent No. 1 should be proceeded against under section 24-A of the Act. The contention of Respondent No. 1 was that he had surrendered his licence to practice in 1965 when he was selected as a Judicial Officer and H any alleged misconduct committed hy him during his tenure as a judicial I - B. S. DHINGRA v. M. L. GUPTA 379 Officer could not be said to be 'other misconduct' committed by him while A .. ~
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.