IMPORTANT POINT
Conduct which amounts to dereliction of duty by an advocate towards his client or towards his case would amount to professional misconduct but negligence without moral turpitude or delinquency may not amount to professional misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-These appeals arise from a common order dated 15.5.1986 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C.I.T. Case Nos. 48 and 49 of 1985. These two cases pertain to the appellant and were transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India under the provisions of Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu could not dispose of these cases within the prescribed period of one year.

2. On or about 21st of October, 1978, the appellant was appointed as City Government Pleader in all the Civil Courts constituted in Madras other than the High Court of Madras. The work was spread over several courts in Madras and the appellant as the City Government Pleader was required to conduct all the civil matters pending in the civil courts of Madras except the High Court, on behalf of the Government and also to give his opinion on these matters from time to time when required. The appellant was allowed the assistance of juniors who were not appointed by the Government. The respondent was provided with staff.

3. The first complaint which was filed by the Commission and Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu against the appellant before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu bearing D.C. Case No. 48/1985 was in respect of Suit No. 400 of 1978 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras. The Government Pleader was instructed to appear on behalf of the State Government in that case. The Memo of Appearance had been filed by the earlier Government Pleader. The records of the case had been sent to the Office of the Government Pleader and he had also been asked to prepare a written statement. However, when the appellant was appointed as Government Pleader, a fresh Memo of Appearance on his behalf had not been filed in the said suit not were the papers put up before him. As a result, on 28.6.1979, the suit was decreed ex parte against the State. An application was thereafter moved by the appellant to set aside the ex parte order. The court set aside the ex parte order on condition that the Government should pay Rs. 20/- as costs. However, the cost was not deposited. As a result the application to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed on 27.9.1979. Consequently the suit was decreed ex parte with costs.

4. This suit had been filed by the Travancore Textiles Pvt. Ltd. against the State of Tamil Nadu relating to a lease of land admeasuring 1240 sq. ft. forming part of a channel. The plaintiff had prayed for a declaration that the annual rent of Rs. 3609.66 as also the Municipal taxes levied were illegal. The plaintiff had also made a prayer for refund of Rs. 25,575.40 with interest at the rate 12% p.a. and for a further declaration that he need not pay any rent after 30.6.1974. The complainant alleged that as a result of the gross negligence on the part of the appellant the Government of Tamil Nadu had suffered substantial loss.

5. The appellant contended that since the office staff had not put up the papers of this case before him, it was through inadvertence that the suit was decreed ex parte. The Bar Council of India has, however, noted that at the time when a application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed the appellant must have known about the pendency of the case, and the serious consequences that would follow if the order for payment of costs were not complied with. The Bar Council has held that for this lapse the appellant cannot raise the plea that the staff was negligent. Now, although the application for setting aside the ex parte order is filed by the appellant, it is not clear from the record whether the appellant had personally appeared in court for setting aside the ex parte order or was personally aware of or was appraised of the order of costs which had been passed while setting aside the ex parte order.

6. In fact, the Bar Council of India has noted mitigating circumstanc