1998 PLP 1875 (CLC)

Tilat Qayum Qureshi, Addl. A.‑G. for the Government of N.‑W.F.P. MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER).‑‑‑ On 8th August, 1996, Major Muhammad Arif filed a complaint in the N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar against respondent No.l Mr. Sardar Bahadur Khan, Advocate Swabi, alleging therein, that a family suit was pending between Mst. Shagufta against Major Ziaur Rehman and others in the Court of Family Judge, Swabi in which the learned Court had fixed a, date for 23‑5‑1996 for hearing of the suit. Summons were issued against Major Ziaur Rehman, who was then serving in 57 Supply and Transport Battalion Army Service Corps, Gujranwala. The complainant on receipt of the information wrote a letter, dated 16‑5‑1996 to Miss Rozina Rehman, Judge Family Court, Swabi on behalf of the Commanding Officer of the said Battalion, that Major Ziaur Rehman is committed on operational Military exercise and due‑to the service exigencies, he will not be in a position to attend the Court and hence, it was requested that the case be adjourned to some other date with intimation to the Commanding Officer.

2. That it is further alleged, that Sardar Bahadur Khan, Advocate respondent No.l who was representing Mst. Shagufta plaintiff in the Court, obtained a copy of the letter and on 23‑5‑1996 addressed a letter to the complainant seeking the verification of letter, dated 16‑5‑1996. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondent No.l was not authorised, to correspond directly with the Army Personnel, which was violative of the Provision of sections 7 and 12 of the Soldiers Litigation Act, 1925 and was against the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils, Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder. It was prayed that as the respondent No.l has committed professional misconduct, so suitable action under the relevant law be taken against him.

3. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar initiated proceedings against respondent No.

1. The respondent No. l submitted his written statement. The parties produced their evidence pro and contra and the Disciplinary Committee vide the impugned order, dated 24‑5‑1997 by a majority view dismissed the complaint. On the same date one member Iqbal Hussain Khalil recorded his dissenting opinion. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the majority view.

4. In support of the appeal Special Attorney for the appellant, Abdur Rehman vehemently contended that the respondent No. l was not authorised to make direct correspondence with complainant, or with Commanding Officer and it was only the Judge Family Court who could verify the contents of the letter, dated 16‑5‑1996. It was further argued that the letter written by respondent No. 1, being violative of the provisions of Soldiers Litigation Act, 1925 and the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act and cannons of conduct prescribed for Advocates, the respondent was, thus, guilty of professional misconduct and liable to be struck off from the roll of Advocates.

5. Respondent No. l while rebutting the arguments of the Attorney of the appellant contended that he had been engaged as counsel by Mst. Shagufta and was conducting the case against Major Ziaur Rehman husband of Mst. Shagufta and his father Abdur Rehman. It was admitted that in fact a letter had been received in the Court of Miss Rozina Rehman, Judge Family Court, Swabi. But the moment it was placed on file it became a public document and the respondent No. l obtained the copy on the instructions of his client Mst. Shagufta, he wrote a letter to the Commanding Officer to verify the contents of the letter, dated 16‑5‑1996. There was nothing personal either between the complainant and respondent No. l or between Major Ziaur Rehman and respondent No.

1. Mst. Shagufta being a bereaved lady whose 4 children had been taken away by Major Ziaur Rehman and for a long time she was residing in her parents house without provisions of any maintenance to her. It was further contended, that in order to obviate the possibility of prolonging the case, he sought the verification of the above‑quoted letter on behalf of his client disclosing his identity as an Advocate for Mst. Shagufta plaintiff. It was next contended that the counsel being authorised by his client through a written power of attorney can perform acts on behalf of his client. As no professional misconduct has been committed by respondent No. 1, it was contended that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Tillat Qayum Qureshi learned Additional Advocate‑General appearing for the Government of N.‑W.F.P. frankly conceded and relying on Rule 173 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, contended that the only embargo placed on the acts of an advocate is that he cannot communicate with nor can appear before a Public Officer without first disclosing his identity as an Advocate. It was contended, that respondent No.l had disclosed his identity as an Advocate/Counsel for Mst. Shagufta plaintiff and as such no professional, misconduct has been committed by respondent No. 1.

7. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the record of the case. It is an admitted position, that there was no jural relationship between the complainant Major Arif, Major Ziaur Rehman and the respondent No.

1. The respondent No. l being an advocate was conducting the case on behalf of Mst. Shagufta. An Advocate enjoys a very high position in the society and he is always expected to conduct a case on behalf of his client diligently and to assist the Court for redress of the genuine grievances of his client and secure justice from the Court of law. While writing a letter to the Commanding Officer he has rightly disclosed his identity as an Advocate and resorted to this for the expeditious disposal of a Family Court case which had been instituted by a lady for maintenance and custody of children.

8. Under Rule 173 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, an advocate cannot address, communicate with or appear before a Public Officer, Board, Committee or Body, in his professional capacity, without first disclosing his identity but in the present case, respondent No. l has categorically written, that he is seeking the verification of the letter, being the counsel for Mst. Shagufta plaintiff. So, the present case is not hit by Rule 173 (ibid).

9. Under the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of Soldiers Litigation Act, 1925, if in a pending case a solider is serving under special conditions or Military exercise, in that case the Court can postpone the hearing of a case to a date, when the special conditions or Military exercise is over, but this is for the Court which is seized of the matter and in this appeal, we are only concerned with the question whether the respondent No. l has committed any professional misconduct or not.

10. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we find no substance in the present appeal and the same is dismissed IC leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H. B. T./115/P Appeal dismissed.