Lord Thankerton-

This appeal is from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 3rd May 1928, by which the appellant, a vakil of 12 years' standing, was found guilty of professional misconduct and was struck off the roll of vakils.

Under S.9, Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 28th December 1865, the High Court is empowered to approve, admit and enrol vakils to plead and act according to the rules and directions of the Court, and under S.10 of the High Court is empowered to make rules for their qualification and admission and to remove or suspend them from practice "on reasonable cause.” R.8 of the Madras Court Appellate Side Rules provides:

"Every enquiry under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of 1865 shall ordinarily be heard and determined by a Bench of three Judges."

On 17th August 1927, Srinivasa Ayyar, a retired Accountant-General, filed a petition in the High Court making complaints against the appellant's professional conduct in relation to one of the latter's client, R. Mahadeva Ayyar, who was the son-in-law of the petitioner. On the direction of the Chief Justice an inquiry was held by Waller, J., at which the Advocate-General appeared in support of the petition and the appellant was represented by counsel. Waller, J., submitted a report on 26th March 1928, in which he stated that all the charges had been made out and that the appellant "had been guilty of the grossest professional misconduct.” On 14th April 1928 the High Court issued to the appellant a notice, in which four charges were-for the first time-definitely formulated, and which he was called on to meet. Thereafter a Court of three Judges constituted under R.8, heard the case having the report of Waller, J. along with the oral and documentary evidence taken before him, submitted to them. On 3rd May 1928, the Court made the order presently appealed from. Though several objections to the procedure were taken by the appellant in the Courts below, these were not maintained before their Lordships, whose consideration was soley directed by the appellant's counsel to the merits of the four charges.

Subject to certain observations and criticisms which their Lordships have to make, it is not necessary to recapitulate the evidence as to the various charges, which is fully detailed in the report of Waller, J. and the judgment of the Court below. Before dealing with the charges it is right to state that, in their Lordships' opinion charges of professional misconduct must be clearly proved and should not be inferred from mere ground for suspicion, however, reasonable, or what may be mere error of judgment or indiscretion. An appropriate guide may be found in S.13, Legal Practitioners Act, No. 18 of 1879, under which a pleader or muktar may be suspended or dismissed, who is guilty "of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty."

All four charges impugn the appellant's conduct in relation to the same client, Mahadeva Ayyar, for whom he has acted on various occasions since the end of 1920. Mahadeva Ayyar was born in 1900, and while still a minor, inherited an estate said to have been worth three lakhs. Their Lordships are unable to accept all the conclusions of the Courts below as to the character and capacity of Mahadeva Ayyar, who was not a witness. It is clear on the evidence that according as in turn he resided with his wife and her father, the petitioner in the present case, or with his sister's husband, Natarajan Ayyar, his actings were of a differing and vacillating nature; further it seems clear enough that he was thriftless. But, while there may be substantial ground for suspicion their Lordships are unable to find evidence sufficient to establish that he was a mere tool in the hands of the appellant or that he was a weak-minded, dissolute, drunken young man; this latter suggestion appears to have been based on a charge, of which he was acquitted and an admission by the appellant in cross-exam