SATISH KUMAR SHARMA versus BAR COUNCIL OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 03-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SA TISH KUMAR SHARMA 
v. 
BAR COUNCIL OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
JANUARY.3; 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
SH!VARAJ V. PAT!L,JJ.) 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
C 
Sections 24(/){e) and 28(2){dj-Enrolment of advocate-Conditions 
for-Certificate of enrolment-Cancellation of-Powers of State Bar Council-
law Officer of State Electricity Board enrolled as advocate-Said law Officer 
promoted as Additional Secretary (law), was governed by service conditions 
and required to work as a full-time salaried employee-After a decade and 
half enrolment cancelled by Bar Council-Validity of-Held: Appointment 
D o;der of law Officer does not indi~ate that he was required to mainly or 
exclusively act or plead in courts on behalf of the employer-Therefore, said 
law Officer does not come within; the_ meaning of 'law Officer' for the 
purposes of R. 49-Hence, cancellation of enrolnlenr valid as he is not 
entitled to be enrolled as an advocate-Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, 
E R49. 
Section 28(2)(dj-law Officer-Enrolment-Cancelled after a decade 
and half-Due to ineligibi/ity-Estoppel-Applicablity of-Held: Neither 
principle of equity nor promissory estoppel is applicable as the law Officer 
suffered threshold bar and was not at all eligible to be enrolled as an 
F advocate. 
Section 35(d)-law Officer-Enrolment of-Cancellation of-On 
grounds of being full-time salaried employee-Whether amounted to 
punishment-Held: There is no action for misconduct since he was not 
entitled for enrolment-Cancellation of enrolment only corrected mistake 
G commiued on misunderstanding-Hence, removal of name from the Rolls of 
the Bar Council without following prescribed procedure not a punishment 
for misconduct. 
Section 21-Seniority-Mainlenance of-law Officer-Enrolment of -
Cancelled due to his being ineligible at the threshold-Held: When he is not 
H at all entitled lo be enrolled question of maintaining his seniority does not 
34 
. 
• 
.--> .. 
arise. 
S.K. SHARMA v. BAR COUNCIL OF H.P. 
\ 
Bar Council of India Rules, 1975: 
35 
Rule 49....:.L<Iw Officer~Meaning ~/-Held: Sho~td not be a f~li-time 
salaried employe~The appoinJme'nJ order m;,,;I indicate· that his work ';s. 
mainly or excluiively to act or plead in Courts .on behalf of.his employ~?.''. B ! 
Words and Phrases: 
. ' 
i 
, 
- , J ~ • : : I 
"Law Officer''.-Meaning of-In the context of R.49 of the Bar Council .. 
. 
l · 
-
. 
'_, '. ·'. 
of India Rules, 1975. 
. '" . , ." . 
... 
The appellant, after securing his LLB degree, was appointed as Law C ; 
• 
-
• 
' 
-· 
• 
- ' 'J !".' -
' 
.... l. 
Officer by the State Electricity Board. The appellant was subsequently enrolled , 
. 
. 
.-
'-
.• ·1·: 
,1. -_-._;'' ')."·,.·; 
as an advocate by the respondent-Bar Council. 
. ,, , : ,, · 
.•. , ,; 
The appellant was a full-time salaried employee at the time ·or his :i 
enrolment as an advocate. He was promoted as Additional Secretary (Law),'·· 
and was governed by the conditions ·of service and disciplina,Y'Rulesl·D 1 
applicable to ihe employees of the Board. The appellant's duties were not 
• 
. 
• 
·. 
r 
' 
• -
' 
' -< ' , , ' 
" 
' ! 
• 
exclusively or mostly to act or plead in courts; • · ·. f · · ' · · · · ' :: 
. 
_;• 1 ti;;:;':;;-, .• ;_'_J~_.,-·' .· •.. .i·-.;
1 ~Fi 
Subsequently, after a decade and half, the Bar.Council withdrew the 'i 
enrolment of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was debarred C 
from being an advocate under Rule 49 of the Bar Council oflndia Rules,--1 E'; 
1975. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed _by the appellant. " 
HeocethisappeaL 
"· _-,~ ·;-ii-:1' -~~'; •. ~ 1•:. ~;:J;, -··~·r.~· }ii :,\i'i" 
.'" 
·l! 
~ 
_,,r'i 
1 ... 
,, 
1i'·_,,,~-:,
1
'/1·1n 
On behalf of !he appellant it has contended that since the respondent 
had not framed any Rules expressly barring Law Office~ from being enrolled 
as an advocate tbe appellant was entitled ror en.~olment; that the .resiiondent ·, F . i 
was estopped from withdrawing the appellant's enrolment afte~ a decade and .. 
half; that the cancellation of the appellant's enrolment amounted to punishment 
which was not valid as the prescribed procedure under Sec,tion 35(d) of the., 
Advocates Act, 1961 was not followed; and that the appellant should be 
allowed to maintain his seniority as an advocate from the date of his enrolment .G;; 
ifhegaveuphisfull-timeemployment.c: .. , •. ·;, .1 .. ii1 
.. ,.:r:: 
.,. 
·' 
'~· 
'~:.,·;~ 
-
''t··,···,~:.·;.;•,;:1•,:t,.~-~ .. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.