An advocate is guilty of professional misconduct if he withdraws money from the court without the client's consent, appropriates fees without consent, fails to render an account of expenses, and does not return the records of civil suits.

JUDGMENT :

(The Judgment of the Court delivered by Kuntaxayya, J.)

This is a proceeding under section 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. It has been started on a complaint made by V, Kameswaramma, alleging pro-fessional misconduct against Sri Duvuri Viswanadham of Kothagudem, an advo-cate practising at Ramavaram. This complaint was referred for enquiry to the District Judge, Khammam. after consultation with the Bar Council. The learn-ed District Judge after due enquiry, submitted his report with a finding that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct. In his opinion, in the cir-cumstances of the case be ought to "be sternly dealt with.

The facts leading to the complaint may be shortly stated. The complainant1 let out her Malgi in Kothagudcm to one Ambaji and his son, Satyanarayana. This soon involved her into .difficulties, as the tenants would not pay her the stipulated rent and filed a petition No. 3 of 1957 before the Rent Controller, Kothagudem, for fixation of fair rent. They then allowed themselves to run into arrears. The complainant would not tolerate the same. She filed a peti tion No. 17/59 before the Rent Controller for eviction. In these two proceedings the advov.ite appointed by the complainant was one Sri Malladi Vcnkatara-mayya Sri D. Viswanadham (the respondent herein) was his junior. As the senior advocate underwent an operation in Kothagudcm, these cases were whol-ly entrusted to the respondent. Thereafter on his advice two further suits O. S. Nos, 39/58 and 2/60 for recovery of arrears of rent were instituted in the Munsiff Magistrate's Court, Ramavaram. According to the complainant, the stipulated legal fee for all the four proceedings was Rs. 200/-. She paid Rs. 100/- in all, towords the same. She paid besides, a sum of Rs. 50O/- towards expenses of litigation. The tenants at long last deposited in the Court a sum of Rs, 1,335/- towards her claim. The respondent withdrew the said amount partly on 23-3-1960 and the rest on 24-3-1960, without the authority of the complainant, on his own application. Having done so, he was not prepared to pay the entire amount to the complainant ; but sought to appropriate for him self a sum of Rs. 200/- towards his fee and pay the balance, to which course the complainant was not agreeable. He then opened a Savings Bank account in his own name and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,135/- He wrote a letter, Ex. B-2 dated 6-4-1960 to the complainant, informing her about the said withdrawal and also the deposit made in the Savings Bank and told her that if she wished to take the said money, he would withdraw the same on one week's notice and pay it to her. As soon as the complainant received the notice, she took excep-tion to the conduct of the advocate in withdrawing the amount without inform-ing her earlier and also in appropriating any sum towards his fees when the cases were Still pending. She categorically stated that she had already paid him Rs. 100/-and not 80/-to wards his fee and contended that she bad agreed 10 pay the balance of Rs, 100/-only in case she won. She called upon him to refund the entire amount withdrawn by him and obtain receipt therefor. As regards the ex penses, she stated that a sum of Rs. 500/-was given to him for thai specific pur pose and that he was liable to render account for the same. She asked him 10 send the statement of account,In a subsequent letter, Ex. D-3 dated 21-4-1960, the respondent admitted that lie had received Rs. 100/- towards legal fee, but stated thai he had to pay towards stamp and other expenses a sum of Rs. 20/-and therefore credit was given only for Rs. 80/-, His contention still'Was that a sum of Rs. 280/- was the agreed fee and that the complainant was entitled only to Rs. 1,135/- which she could receive at his office on a week's prior notice. He denied that a sum as large as Rs. 500/- was deposited with him towards expenses and also the fact that except one suit, any other suit was pending.

This attitude on the part o