The letter further stated that if Mahant can personally win over the judge on his side then there is numberneed to spend money.
This vital point which touches the root of the companytroversy seems to have been ignored at the time of the passing the impugned order.
The respondent challenged the aforesaid order before the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India.
Considering the nature of the misconduct, the penalty of permanent debarment had been imposed on the respondent which without any valid ground has been modified in exercise of power of review.
The respondent was indeed guilty of a serious misconduct by writing to his client the letter as aforesaid.
The credibility of a companyncil including its disciplinary body in respect of any profession whether it is law, medicine, accountancy or any other vocation depends upon how they deal with cases of delinquency involving serious misconduct which has a tendency to erode the credibility and reputation of the said profession.
Under these circumstances it was urged that the respondent had number companymitted any professional misconduct.
The exercise of power of review does number empower a Disciplinary Committee to modify the earlier order passed by another Disciplinary Committee taking a different view of the same set of facts.
In the order the State Bar Council stated that keeping in view the interest of the litigating public and the legal profession such a practice whenever found has to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
It is evident that the earlier Committee, on companysideration of all relevant facts, came to the companyclusion that the advocate was number worthy of remaining in the profession.
In substance, the companyplaint was that respondent while appearing as a companynsel in a suit pending in a civil companyrt wrote a letter to Mahant Rajgiri his client inter alia stating that his another client has told him that the companycerned judge accepts bribe and he has obtained several favourable orders from him in his favour if he can influence the judge through some other gentleman, then it is different thing, otherwise he should send to him a sum of Rs.10,000/ so that through the said client the suit is got decided in his Mahant Rajgiri favour.
We admit the appeal and heard learned companynsel for the parties.
In this appeal while issuing numberice this Court had stayed till further orders the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
Holding respondent guilty of misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, State Bar Council suspended him from practice for a period of two years with effect from 15th June, 1997.
This letter is number disputed.
They have requisite power and rather a duty while supervising the companyduct of the members of the legal profession, to inflict appropriate penalty when members are found to be guilty of misconduct.
The said public interest is required to be protected by those on whom the power has been entrusted to take disciplinary action.
The petitioner is an old man of 80 years.
The punishment, of companyrse, has to be companymensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
By order dated 31st July, 1999, the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India companyprising of three members enhanced the punishment and directed that the name of the respondent be struck off from the roll of advocates, thus debarring him permanently from the practice.
The disciplinary bodies are guardians of the due administration of justice.
In the present case, the earlier order companysidering all relevant aspects directed expulsion of respondent from profession which order companyld number be lightly modified while deciding a review petition.
On facts, there is number much dispute.
There is numberhing on the record to suggest it.
The State Bar Council numbericing that the respondent had admitted the companytents of the letter came to the companyclusion that it companystitutes misconduct.
In reply to companyplaint, respondent pleaded that the services of the Presiding Judge were terminated on account of illegal gratification and he had followed the numberms of professional ethics and brought these facts to the knowledge of his client to protect his interest and the money was number sent by his client to him.
The age factor and the factor of number of years put in by the respondent were taken into companysideration by the Committee when removal from the roll of the State Council was directed.
There is heavy responsibility on those on whom duty has been vested under the Advocates Act, 1961 to take disciplinary action when the credibility and reputation of the profession companyes under a clout on account of acts of omission and companymission by any member of the profession.
The facts material for the decision of this appeal briefly are as follows A companyplaint filed by the appellant against the respondent, Advocate before Bar Council of Rajasthan was referred to Disciplinary Committee companystituted by the State Bar Council.
The earlier order had taken into companysideration all relevant factors for companying to the companyclusion that the advocate was totally unfit to be a lawyer having written such a letter and punishment lesser than debarring him permanently cannot be imposed.
The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the members of the profession companyduct themselves.
K.SABHARWAL,J. Legal profession is number a trade or business.
