IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of a Rule issued in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978, as amended, on E. A. Vajira Dissanayake, Attorney-at-

Law.

SC Rule No: 02/2021 Ashanthi Weerakoon, No. 262, Kotte Road, Nugegoda.

COMPLAINANT Vs.

E. A. Vajira Dissanayake, No. 181, Kajugahawatta, Gothatuwa New Town, Angoda RESPONDENT Before: Jayantha Jayasuriya, CJ P. Padman Surasena, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Counsel: Shiral Lakthilaka for the Respondent Maheshika Silva, Deputy Solicitor General for the Attorney General Rohan Sahabandu, PC for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka Inquiry on: 4^th April 2023, 18^th January 2024, 29^th February 2024, 30^th April, 2024, 24^th July 2024 and 1^st August 2024 Decided on: 26^th November 2024 Obeyesekere, J The Respondent was admitted and enrolled as an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court on 10^th July 1993.

By way of a written complaint dated 23^rd April 2012, Ashanthi Weerakoon [the Complainant] informed the Hon. Chief Justice as follows:

(a) She had signed as a guarantor to a loan taken by Udaya Nilantha De Silva [the Borrower] to purchase a motor vehicle;

(b) Due to the non-payment of the monthly instalments, the lessor Ceylinco Leasing Corporation Limited had instituted proceedings in the Commercial High Court against the Borrower and the two guarantors, and that she had been named as the

3^rd defendant [Case No. CHC (Civil) No. 28/2019MR];

(c) Although she had not met the Respondent at any time, a proxy said to contain her signature had been filed by the Respondent and answer had been filed on her behalf without her providing any instructions to the Respondent;

(d) Judgment had been entered against her by the Commercial High Court on 30^th March 2012;

(e) Although she had sought to file a notice of appeal through an Attorney-at-Law of her choice, it had been rejected due to a proxy having already been filed by the Respondent, thus depriving her of the opportunity of filing an appeal against the said judgment;

(f) She firmly believes that the Respondent had colluded with the Borrower in forging her signature and deprived her the opportunity of presenting her defense in the said case.

Pursuant to an inquiry conducted by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka at the direction of the Hon. Chief Justice, a Rule was issued on the Respondent on 20^th January 2022. The Respondent was thereafter afforded an opportunity of showing cause as to why the Rule should not be made absolute. Accordingly, the Respondent filed an affidavit on 24^th June 2022 denying the allegations levelled against him and setting out his position on the matters contained in the said Rule, thus necessitating this Court to proceed to hold an inquiry.

The Rule was read over to the Respondent in Open Court on 6^th December 2022. With the Respondent pleading not guilty, the inquiry commenced on 4^th April 2023. The learned Deputy Solicitor General led the evidence of three witnesses, including that of the Complainant and the Examiner of Questioned Documents who had examined the signature of the Complainant on the impugned proxy, compared it with specimen signatures of the Complainant and confirmed in his report that the signature on the proxy is not that of the Complainant.

At the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the aforementioned affidavit of the Respondent was considered as his evidence-in-chief. After the conclusion of the cross examination of the Respondent and while under re-examination, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, having obtained instructions from the Respondent, submitted that the Respondent wishes to withdraw his initial plea of not guilty and plead to all charges contained in the Rule. This Court thereafter inquired from the Respondent on the withdrawal of the initial plea and him pleading guilty to the Rule almost at the tail end of the inquiry, and being satisfied that the Respondent is acting voluntarily and fully understands the consequences of such a