Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 1224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, RAVI RANJAN, JJ.
Praveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Bar Council of India through its Chairman & Ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.1100 of 2009 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10226 of 2009
Decided On : 22-08-2014
For the Appellant : Mr. Praveen Kumar (In Person)
For the Respondent: Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Gyan Prakash Ojha, Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, S.N.P. Sinha (In Person)
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making authority must act without bias, and lack of proper application of mind can invalidate a disciplinary proceeding. The judgment also clarified the provisions of Section 35 and Section 36 of the Advocates Act.
Headnote:
Bias - Disciplinary Proceeding - [Section 35 of the Advocates Act, Section 36 of the Advocates Act] - The court found that the Special Committee's decision to include the respondent No. 5 in the deliberation, despite the complaints being directed against him, violated the principle of natural justice. The court also noted lack of proper application of mind by the Special Committee and found the allegations made by the appellant were not baseless. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the entire disciplinary proceeding against the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the impugned order dismissing the writ application, which sought to quash the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him by the Bihar State Bar Council. The crux of the matter related to two letters addressed by the appellant to the Advocate General, Bihar, alleging misconduct by respondent No. 5, a member of the Special Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Special Committee's decision to include the respondent No. 5 in the deliberation violated the principle of natural justice. It also noted lack of proper application of mind by the Special Committee and found the allegations made by the appellant were not baseless.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the respondent No. 5 should have been excluded from the deliberation of the Special Committee considering the complaints were directed against him. Other issues included lack of proper application of mind by the Special Committee and the validity of the disciplinary proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Special Committee's decision to include the respondent No. 5 in the deliberation violated the principle of natural justice. It also found that the allegations made by the appellant were not baseless. The court further clarified the provisions of Section 35 and Section 36 of the Advocates Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the entire disciplinary proceeding against the appellant.
RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, J.
Heard the appellant and learned counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council. The other respondents have either not entered appearance or have chosen not to argue in the matter.
2. The petitioner-appellant in the present appeal has challenged the impugned order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10226 of 2009 by which the writ application has been dismissed on the ground that it cannot be maintained at this stage agreeing with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the writ application is premature and the petitioner-appellant has all the liberty to raise every objection including the initiation of the proceeding against him before the Bar Council of India.
3. The petitioner-appellant had filed the writ application for quashing the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him by the resolution of the Special Committee of the Bihar State Bar Council dated 14.01.2009 at item No. 16 and further sought to challenge the resolution dated 22.05.2009 of the Special Committee by which it was decided to send the original record of the D.C. Enquiry No.4/2009 to the Bar Council of India and for restraining the Bar Council of India from proceeding with the same and for quashing a notice dated 11.08.2009 issued by the Bar Council of India and consequential reliefs.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, including the filing of a writ petition by the writ petitioner with regard to the elections to the Bihar State Bar Council and the nomination of Respondent No. 5 as a Member of the Special Committee, the crux of the matter relates to two letters dated 26.11.2008 and 01.12.2008 which the petitioner appellant addressed to the Advocate General, Bihar – cum - Chairman, Special Committee, Bihar State Bar Council. The subject matter of the first letter was for the Special Committee “to take an action against one of the members of the S.C. of B.S.B.C.” and in the second letter the subject matter was “Regarding uprooting corruption and for holding election” with respect to earlier representation dated 26/27 November, 2008. In the first letter dated 26.11.2008 the petitioner-appellant referred to the shocking conduct of respondent No. 5 in not getting the different orders of this Court published in the Bihar Bar Council Journal which orders are alleged to have been against the working of outgoing members of the Bar Council and had been approved for reporting by this Court and the reporting of a few of such judgments after a long delay of more than a year and another case after 3-4 years which, according to him, proved without any reasonable doubt that the respondent No. 5 was misusing the chair and power causing loss to society and engaged for wrongful gain for him. Another allegation made was that the notification issued by the Bar Council of India in September 2008 was not being made available to him at the behest of the said member. It was further stated that thereafter so many misdeeds and colourable exercise of power and high-handedness of the said member is available in record of the office which required inquiry, as the matter relates to finance and suitable action was requested to be taken against the Secretary, Managing Editor, Editor and the said member who was illegally occupying the office even after order passed by this Court on 10.7.2008 directing the Bar Council of India to remove him. Further allegations were made regarding the election being delayed due to in-competency of the said member and officials of the Council. Motive alleged behind it is to enjoy the post without facing election, as no further extension of Special Committee is to be granted. The petitioner-appellant also expressed his readiness to assist in the matter and whenever new materials will come to his knowledge he would bring the same to the notice of the Chairman.
5. In the letter dated 01.12.2008 allegations were made that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was allotted to the Secretary of Birpur Sub
