The appellant, along with four other members of the Bar Association at Samrala, by an application dated 28.8.81, moved the State Bar Council for drawing up of proceedings under Section 35 of the Act.
The High Court of Punjab Haryana accepted the report and recommended his dismissal from judicial service to the Government of Punjab.
In the meanwhile, after the dismissal order, the respondent requested the Chairman of the State Bar Council, Respondent number 3 herein, to permit him to resume his practice as an advocate.
1 advocate was ex onerated of the charge of misconduct levelled against him by the appel lant companyplainants.
The said request was accepted by the Chairman of the State Bar Council on 26.7.77.
In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant facts leading to these proceed ings.
During his tenure, companyplaints of bribery and companymis sion of other misconduct were made against him by several persons to the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh.
Under these circumstances, seven members of Samrala Bar including the present appellants filed Revision Petition No.
The then Chairman of the State Bar Council by his order dated 26.7.79 companyfirmed the earlier order dated 26.7.77 granting resumption of licence to practise to Respondent number 1.
The Bar Council of India by its order dated 25.7.81 set aside the earlier orders of the State Bar Council observing that prima facie it appears that Respondent number 1 was guilty of criminal misconduct under Section 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other charges and directed that appropriate disciplinary proceedings be initiated by the State Bar Council against Respondent No.
Certain members of the Samrala Bar including its President filed objections dated 21.11.77 against the grant of resumption of licence to practise as made available to Respondent number 1.
The State Government by its order dated 30.6.77 accepted the recommendation of the High Court and dismissed him from service.
In the year 1972 Respondent number 1 was posted as Judicial Magistrate cum Sub Judge 1st Class at Samrala in Ludhiana Dis trict of Punjab State.
Subsequently, he was selected as a judicial officer by the High Court of Punjab Haryana and he joined judicial service in the year 1965 and got his licence to practise suspended.
Respondent number 1 unsuccessfully challenged the dismissal order in Writ Petition before the High Court and thereafter his challenge to the dismissal order also failed before this Court when his Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.3.1979.
These proceedings were registered as Disciplinary Case before the appropriate disciplinary companymittee of the State Bar Coun cil against Respondent number 1.
It is against the said order that present appeal is moved by the appellant original companyplainants as aforesaid.
Consequently, the disciplinary case against Respondent number 1 stood statutorily transferred to the Bar Council of India.
The Bar Council of India heard the disciplinary case and it ultimately dismissed the same by its order dated 11.2.89.
After preliminary inquiry by a Judge of the High Court, a regular departmental inquiry was held against him.
1999 1 SCR 377 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. MAJMUDAR, J This appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act has brought in challenge the order passed by the disciplinary companymittee of the Bar Council of India in a transferred case whereunder Respondent No.
It is number in dispute between the parties that since that date Respondent number 1 is practising as an advocate in the Taluk Court at Samrala wherein earlier he was functioning as a Presiding Judge.
14 of 1980 before the Bar Council of India on 12.4.80 praying for quashing the order passed by the State Bar Council.
The Inquiry Officer found Respondent number 1 guilty of offence punishable under Section 5 l e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as well as misconduct unbecoming of a judicial officer, though he was exonerated of three other charges.
In the said proceedings, evidence was led by the respective parties and the matter was pending for arguments.
Respondent number 1 was unfit to companytinue as an advocate being guilty of such other misconduct when he was found liable to be dismissed from judicial service on proved misconduct of companyruption as found by the High Court as his disciplinary authority at the relevant time.
However, in the meantime, period for one year prescribed by law for finalisation of the case by the disciplinary companymittee of the State Bar Council ex pired.
BACK GROUND FACTS Respondent number 1 was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Punjab Haryana under the provisions of the Act in 1963 and he started his practice as an advocate at Faridkot in the Punjab State.
