1995 PLP 2012 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER).

On 16-5-1993, LiThe Disciplinary Committee of the N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar alleging therein that the respondent Mr. Muhammad Khalid Advocate is a practising lawyer and is practising at Oghi, Mansehra and abbotabad and is, thus attached to the legal profession. He also runs a private school under the name and style of Gordon public School Oghi it was further alleged in the complaint that the respondent under the legal practitioner and Bar councils Act 1973 and the rules framed thereunder cannot carry on any other profession or business and has thus committed professional misconduct as envisaged under the above law hence the instant complaint.

2. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.W.F.P Bar council Peshawar initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent submitted his written statement. The parties led evidence before the Disciplinary Committee, as they wished to adduce and the Committee after considering the evidence available on the record and hearing the parties referred the matter to this Tribunal vide order dated 25‑8‑1994 for final adjudication.

3. In the written statement submitted by the respondent the allegations contained in the complaint were denied by the respondent Advocate. It was stated that the Gordon Public School is a social institution established in 1990 with the cooperation of some respectable social persons of the locality. However; the respondent admitted that he is the poineer and a member of the managing body and thus, is a patron of the institution.

4. In proof of the allegations complainant has produced an attested copy of the letter addressed to SHO Police Station Oghi, Mansehra, copy of which is Exh.PW 1/1 on file, in which the respondent has described himself as Principal of the School and this letter is written on letter head pad of the institution.

5. Even in his statement before the Disciplinary Committee, the respondent attributed the filing of the instant complaint to be the result of political rivalry and termed the contents of the complaint to be baseless and unwarranted. However, he admitted, the opening of the school, providing building for the same and taking active part in its management. The respondent further admitted the factum of the registration of the school and taking the responsibility of the administration and management of the same. The respondent further admitted to be the Legal Advisor of the school. It was however, averred that no salary was derived by the respondent. He however, admitted that he will take his share in the profit of the school according to the ratio of his investment as and when the said profit accrues to the institution.

6. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General and Mr. Iqbal Durrani, Advocate appearing for the complainant mainly relied on the statement of the respondent in which he has admitted his active participation in the management and administration of the school and particularly his share in the profits of the institution and contended that under rule 175 of Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, an advocate, as a general rule 'cannot carry on any other profession or business or to be an active partner or salaried official/servant. qua any such profession or business. The learned counsel further contended that Chapter XII of the above‑quoted rules prescribes cannons of professional conduct and etiquettes of Advocates, which the Advocates are bound to observe and any violation of these cannons would amount to misconduct as envisaged under Rule 175‑A of the above rules, and prayed that in view of the above, the respondent has committed a grave professional misconduct for which he is liable for punishments as enumerated in section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973.

7. Mr. K.G. Sabir learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent has not taken part or shared the profits of the Gordon Public School Oghi, Manserha and he was associated with the Administration of the school as a Social Worker and acted as such, so his case does not come within the preview of rule 175‑A and thus, has not committed any professional misconduct.

8. Before the Tribunal during the course of arguments the respondent submitted an application, the relevant portion of which is reproduced in verbatim as under: "The respondent had not indulged in any profitable job, but was actually inspired to create an institution where young children could receive education. Whatever interest of the respondent by way of investment had, that has already been transferred and that the respondent has not been left with any active or any other part in the said school. The respondent undertakes, that he will not indulge in any activity which is prohibited by the rules of conduct prescribed for the Advocates. This lapse happened because the respondent was not motivated to make any profit and was not fully aware of the complications of rendering any help in the said school:"

9. An advocate enjoys a very high position in the society and is expected to conduct himself in such a way so as to maintain the dignity of the legal profession both within and outside Courts and not to conduct himself in a way so as to bypass the professional ethics. There is evidence on the record that the respondent actively participated in the management of the school and also the sharing of profits, which is against the cannons of professional conduct and ethics and any violation of the said cannons, would amount to a professional misconduct under rule 175‑A of the Rules.

10. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we find the respondent guilty of professional misconduct. However, in view of the written undertaking and apology tendered by the respondent, we would take a lenient view and reprimand the respondent Advocate to be careful in future and to maintain the honour and dignity of the legal profession in future. AA./1812/P Order accordingly.