The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the Disciplinary Committee to transfer the inquiry to the Appellate Authority after the expiry of one year from the receipt of the complaint, and the importance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing and cross-examination to the respondent during the inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Heard Mr. Bikash Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant no.1 filed a complaint on 29.06.2005 against the respondent advocate. On receipt of that complaint, an office report dated 17.12.2005 was prepared and placed before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (for short, `State Bar Council'). The State Bar Council vide its Resolution No.2702/05 dated 18.12.2005, decided to refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee. On reference made to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, it took cognizance of the complaint on 15.01.2006.

3. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the respondent advocate who was staying in the neighborhood and had good relations with the family of the appellants, took original certificates, photographs, and signature of the appellant no.1 on some blank papers on the pretext that he will register her name with the Employment Exchange. It is also alleged that the respondent got a joint photo of himself with the appellant no.1. Because of some dispute between the parties, the appellant no.1 called upon the respondent to return her original certificates and blank signed papers. The respondent then started blackmailing the appellants and their father. The respondent also threatened the appellants and demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac. On refusal to make payment, he surreptitiously filed an application in the name of appellant no.1 along with a forged caste certificate mentioning the appellant no.1 as his wife. The respondent then registered a false criminal case against the appellants for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. He also filed a complaint against the appellants, their father and one Shri R. C. Pandey, under Section 500 of I.P.C. The appellant no.2 was arrested in connection with the criminal case and later released on bail after a month. Besides the criminal cases, it is alleged that the respondent fraudulently moved an application on behalf of appellant no.1 before the Dowry Prohibition Officer, Rampur on 13.05.1998 against himself. That was dismissed on 1st July, 1999 due to non-appearance of appellant no.1. It is also alleged that the respondent was blackmailing the appellant no.2, who was working as a Clerk in the District Development Office, Rampur. The thrust of the allegations in the complaint was about the fraudulent activities of the respondent, including an attempt to blackmail the appellants and their family members for ulterior purposes.

4. The complaint proceeded before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. as D.C. Case No.122/2005. The Disciplinary Committee vide order dated 23.12.2006 accepted the allegations made against the respondent; and awarded him a punishment under Section 35 (3) (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short "the said Act"), directing removal of his name from the State Roll of Advocates.

5. This decision was challenged by the respondent before the Bar Council of India by way of D.C. Appeal No.4/2008. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India vide order dated 21.01.2010 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set-aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council dated 23.12.2006. The Bar Council of India, being the Appellate Authority, accepted the contention of the respondent that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council could not have proceeded with the inquiry after lapse of one year, in view of Section 36-B of the Act. On perusal of the record, the Appellate Authority found that a false order sheet was prepared by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council and the possibility that the inquiry was conducted only by one Member of that Committee could not be ruled out. The Appellate Authority also noted that the appellants herein could not deny that position. The appellants, however, contended that any irregularity committed by th