Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa – Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No. 7383 of 2023
Decided on : 09-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Vishal Kanade, i/b Akshay Shinde.
For the Respondent: Mr Makrand Bakore, Mr NR Pradhan, with JJ Satghar, i/b VL Gurav, Mr Shekhar Jagtap.
Headnote:
Advocates Act, 1961 - Misconduct - Wrongful termination - Issue writ of certiorari and or any other writs, directions or order whereby calling for records, proceedings and papers of Respondent No 1 and after examining legality of Order cum Report to quash and set aside said Order –Court see no form of misconduct let alone any kind of misconduct requiring an enquiry of any nature whatsoever - Para 21.
Finding of the Court: Entire recommendation of matter to Disciplinary Committee is fundamentally flawed and based on a complete misconception of role of Petitioner and duties that are cast upon her as an advocate at Bar - More than that, Report completely overlooks that Writ Petitioner is first and foremost an officer of Court - Unless it is shown that there is misconduct within frame of statute or that there is a sufficient case made for investigation into that aspect of matter, there is no question of pillorying every advocate just because a litigant feels aggrieved in some particular litigation – Court is equally concerned with standards at Bar, and court is also concerned that interest of advocates should not lightly be compromised because of some fanciful notions that a litigant may have - Consequences of such action on lives and careers of advocates and attendant emotional and mental trauma are almost indescribable - There was no merit at all in complaint – Court see no form of misconduct let alone any kind of misconduct requiring an enquiry of any nature whatsoever.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Patel, J.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. There is an Affidavit in Reply of the 2nd Respondent filed on record.
2. This is a most unfortunate case. The Petitioner is an advocate of this Court. She has been in practice since about 1985. She has worked on the Appellate Side of this Court as an Assistant Government Pleader for several years and then as an Assistant Government Pleader and an Additional Government Pleader on the Original Side. The 1st Respondent is the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (“BCMG”). The 2nd Respondent is an individual involved in a litigation that began in the High Court and was then transferred to the City Civil Court. The 3rd Respondent, added by amendment, is the Bar Council of India.
3. There is a long and convoluted history to the matter. Prayer (a) of the Petition at page 18 reads thus:
a) That the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and or any other writs, directions or order in nature of certiorari whereby calling for the records, proceedings and papers of the Respondent No 1 - and after examining the legality of the Order cum Report dated 20-09-20220 in D C No 264 of 2017 of Mr Subhash Ghatge - Advocate - Member of Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa i.e. the Respondent No 1, to quash and set aside the said Order cum Report dated 20-09-2022 in D C No 264 of 2017 of Mr Subhash Ghatge - Advocate - Member of Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and further to reject the complaint bearing DC No 264 of 2017;
4. The direct challenge, therefore, is to the order of 20th September 2022 in a Disciplinary Case No. 264 of 2017. That order was passed by an advocate member of the BCMG (the 1st Respondent). A copy of that order is at page 376. It is styled as a ‘Report’. The complainant was the 2nd Respondent, Bhakad, and the Writ Petitioner, Ms Geeta Shastri, was the 2nd Respondent to that application.
5. The operative portion of the Impugned Order referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the BCMG for an enquiry. That was on 20th September 2022. No action having been taken within six months, there was an automatic transfer to the Bar Council of India. Hence the addition of the BCI as a party Respondent.
6. Bhakad’s allegations turned on a dispute between him and the Ismail Yusuf Junior College, a State Government educational institution. He was a lecturer there. His services were terminated in by the college with effect from 1st December 1993. Bhakad is, apparently, now a practicing advocate. His case against the college was of wrongful termination. He sought damages of over Rs. 43 lakhs in Suit No. 1204 of 1995, initially filed on the Original Side of this Court. In that suit, the college filed a Written Statement.
7. On the increase of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, that suit then got transferred to the City Civil Court. It seems that in that suit, the college filed a Chamber Summons seeking an amendment of the Written Statement. The Affidavit in Support of that Chamber Summons had certain documents annexed to it.
8. Bhakad’s case is that some of the annexures to the Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Summons were certified as true copies by the Advocate-on-Record, Mr NP Pandit. These included photocopies of a Special Leave Petition, an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and so forth. The Chamber Summons and Affidavit were, however, identified under the signature of the Writ Petitioner, Ms Shastri.
9. Bhakad disputed the correctness of these annexures.
10. Cutting a very long story short, it seems that Ms Shastri then filed an Affidavit on 29th August 2016 saying that as far as she was aware there was a practice note requiring Advocates-on-Record (and it is important to note that she was not the Advocate-on-Record and did not sign as such) to endorse that annexures were indeed true copies. She later corrected course in an additional Affidavit dated 7th November 2017 and said that she was mistaken to the extent that ther
