Professional misconduct: Pawan Kumar Sharma v Gurdial Singh

Citation

AIR 1999 SC 98

Bench

Dr. A. S. Anand, J. And V. N. Khare, J.

Introduction

A complaint was filed by the respondent against the appellant that he was engaging in other businesses after enrolment as an advocate. In accordance with the Bar Council of India's Rule 47 and 48, the applicant was suspended for a period of one year. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the disciplinary committee's decision.

According to Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules: Advocates may not engage in business themselves, but may be sleeping partners in firms doing business provided their business does not harm the dignity of their profession, as determined by the appropriate State Bar Council.

In Rule 48, an Advocate may serve as a director or Chairman of a Board of Directors without paying an ordinary sitting fee, provided he does not have any executive duties. No advocate may serve as a Managing Director or Secretary.

Facts

Appellant had enrolled himself as an advocate with the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council and at that time his family was engaged in the taxi business. He also owned four taxis. The appellant argued that he transferred all the taxis to different persons after enrolling as an Advocate and that he did not carry on with the "taxi business" thereafter. Those affidavits were filed.

After considering the evidence on record, the Disciplinary Committee suspended the appellant for one year for professional misconduct. The appeal has been filed.

Appeal was initially filed with the State Bar Council, then transferred to the Bar Council of India. According to the respondent in appeal, the appellant was doing both "taxi business" and practicing law without the prior permission of the Bar Council.

Issue And Fact of Law

Whether respondent has committed the professional misconduct, as mentioned in the complaint?

Judgement

The court ruled that professional misconduct is quasi-criminal in nature. It must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, not by preponderance of probabilities. After the enrolment, there is no mention or evidence that he engaged himself in the taxi business. It was only shown in the case that the appellant owned four taxis. It is impossible to conclude that he was engaged in "taxi business" based on the mere ownership of the taxis, even if we ignore the appellant's evidence that he had disposed of the taxis after enrolment.

Considering the material on record, it cannot be said that the complainant has established that the appellant engaged in taxi business after his enrolment as an Advocate. The evidence is vague, indefinite, and scant. The misconduct charge against the appellant is not established. Hence, it was a mistake for the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India to hold the appellant guilty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India’s order was set aside. No costs.