2006 PLP 1179 (MLD)

Laws Cited

Representation

• AMANULLAH SOOMRO, ADVOCATE---Respondent
• ----S. 41(1)---Professional misconduct---Proceedings against advocate were originally initiated by Disciplinary Committee of Sindh Bar Council on complaint of Vice-President of Bar Association to the effect that advocate concerned was not practising as an advocate and he was engaged in work of Stamp Vendor and Notary Public; that said advocate had always been allegedly speaking and using un-parliamentary language against advocates and also against Judges of Lower and High Judiciary; that due. to his such activities, District Bar Association had cancelled his membership and his name was struck off the role of District Bar; and that in General Body Meeting of District Bar. Association, it was unanimously resolved to file complaint with Sindh Bar Council for disciplinary action against the advocate on account of his acts of misconduct being repeatedly committed by him---Disciplinary Committee took cognizance of matter and issued notice to the advocate, but despite service, he did not appear---No controversy and rebuttal being available against assertions made in the complaint against him, Disciplinary Committee found the advocate guilty of professional misconduct and referred the matter to the Tribunal for trial and action against the advocate---Advocate remained absent despite service---Overwhelming documentary and oral evidence adduced in support of complaint having remained unchallenged and unrebutted, presumption, in circumstances, would be that complaint and case against accused advocate had been proved and allegation against him were deemed to be correct---Reference made by Disciplinary Committee was allowed and advocate concerned was removed from the practice and his enrolment was cancelled with immediate effect.
• BHAJANDAS TEJWANI (MEMBER).---The proceedings in the above reference were originally initiated by the Disciplinary Committee of Sindh Bar Council on the complaint of Mr. Salahuddin Panhwar, Vice-President, Mirpur Khas Bar Association against Mr. Amanullah Soomro, an Advocate, enrolled with Sindh Bar Council. According to the complaint, the respondent is not practising as an Advocate and he is engaged in the work of Stamp Vendor and Notary Public. The respondent has always been speaking and using unparliamentary language against the Advocates and so also against the learned Judges of the Lower and Higher Judiciary. Due to his such activities, the Mirpur Khas District Bar Association has cancelled his Membership and his name was struck off from the role of said District Bar. Furthermore in the General Body meeting of the District Bar Association Mirpur Khas, it was unanimously resolved to file complaint with the Sindh Bar Council for Disciplinary action against the respondent on account of his acts of misconduct, being repeatedly committed by him.
• On receipt of the above complaint, the Disciplinary Committee took the cognizance of the matter and issued notice to the respondent but in spite of service, he did not care even to appear before the Disciplinary Committee of Sindh Bar Council, a representative body of the Advocates and in such situation when there was no controvertion and rebuttal against the assertions made in the complaint, the Disciplinary Committee by order dated 19-9-1998, held that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct and referred the matter to this Tribunal for trial and action against the respondent.
• Accordingly the deposition of Mr. Ali Hassan Chandio was recorded on 15-10-2005, by one of the members of this Tribunal. Mr. Ali Hassan Chandio has fully supported the complaint, made by Mr. Salahuddin Panhwar, the then Vice-President, District Bar Association Mirpur Khas and also produced the deposition of the respondent, recorded in Criminal Case No.86 of 1996 by the learned 1st Judicial Magistrate Mirpur Khas, order dated 10-4-1994, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tando Adam in Guardianship Application No.2 of 1993 and Exhibit 1/22. Complaint of Mr. K.B. Lohano, Advocate and Member of District Bar Association Mirpur Khas at Exhibit 23, direct complaint filed against the respondent by Mr. K.B Lohano at Exhibits 24-26, the Pamphlets and hand bills published and issued by the respondent against the Advocate Community and Honourable Members of Judiciary at Exhibits 27-53. The evidence of Mr. Ali Hassan Chandio, President of District Bar Association, Mirpur Khas has gone unchallenged, as the respondent has avoided to appear before this Tribunal in spite of service of notice and failed to put any question in cross from the President of the District Bar Association.
• The provision of subsection (1) of section 41 of Chapter VII of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973), empowers this Tribunal to punish an Advocate on finding his guilt of professional or other misconduct. The word "misconduct" is a generic term and means wrong or improper conduct, bad behaviour and its effect on the discipline and reputation of the group or society. In this case, the evidence brought on record has proved that the respondent, by his act of repeatedly publishing and issuing pamphlets and hand bills, in which he has been using the most unparliamentary, abusive and defamatory words and language against the Advocates community in general and learned members of the judiciary including Honourable Judges of High Court. Such unparliamentary words frequently repeated and used by the respondent through his pamphlets, hand bills and expressions are mentioned in the documents exhibited in most trustworthy and independent evidence given on behalf of District Bar Association, a representative body of Lawyers community. Such dirty language and words need not be repeated here. The rule 134 of the Legal Practitioner D and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 envisages that it is a duty of every Advocate to uphold at all the times the dignity and high standing of his profession as well as his own dignity and high standing as a Member of Legal Fraternity, but the respondent has fully violated the canons of professional conduct and in such situation, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the respondent is guilty of "Gross Professional Misconduct", warranting punishment provided under subsection (1) of section 41 of Act (XXXV of 1973).

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree