' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, (MEMBER).---On 29th December, 1998 Mustafa Kamal complainant filed a complaint in the N.W.F.P. Bar Council against Ghulam Sabir Advocate District Bar Association Peshawar alleging therein, that the complainant had engaged the respondent as an Advocate and through the respondent sent a notice dated 23-11-1988 to the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Peshawar as the complainant had a claim of insurance against the Corporation.
2. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the dispute was going on with the State Life, Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, the complainant issued a letter to the State Life Insurance Corporation on 26-9-1996 for the refund of the policies, who in turn, intimated to the complainant that the Corporation had received a letter dated 6-6-1989 from Ghulam Sabir Advocate withdrawing the earlier notice on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled by the complainant and the grievance of the complainant has been redressed and in this way the respondent violated the canons of conduct prescribed for Advocates and has thus betrayed the trust of the complainant.
3. It is further averred in the complaint that the complainant has never given any instructions to the respondents for withdrawal of notice to the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and thus the respondent while acting dishonestly and in-league with the Corporation as violated the canons of conduct prescribed for the Advocates and had committed a gross professional misconduct under the provisions of the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council Act 1973 and the rules framed there under.
4. The Disciplinary Committee of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent submitted a detailed written statement dated 27-3-1999, in which, the allegations with respect to the issuance of notice and withdrawal of thee same were admitted, however, it was pleaded that the notice as well as the letter of withdrawal of the earlier notice was issued by the respondent at the instance of Abdul Waheed Khan Advocate, Peshawar (rx,w dead).
It was however, pleaded that the complainant had never engaged the respondent as an Advocate, neither the fee for professional duties was received by the respondent nor there existed any jural relation between the parties, as counsel and client, and so whatever has been done by respondent was done in good faith for Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan, Advocate who was the best friend of the respondent and was also his colleague, the said proceedings were done by the respondent for Abdul Waheed Khan Advocate.
5. Parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and learned Member of the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council after perusing the evidence and data available on the record referred the matter to this Tribunal for final adjudication vide reference dated 19-5-2001.
6. Mr. Raham Badshah Khattak Advocate learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the respondent has admitted the issuance of notice and subsequent withdrawal not only in his written statement but also in his statement recorded before the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council and it is immaterial as to at whose instructions the notice was issued. It is only the issuance of notice and its subsequent withdrawal which is material in this case and the same conduct tells adversely on the credentials of the respondent.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Lateef Advocate learned counsel for the respondent submitted that whatever the respondent has done that was done in-gratus for his colleague Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan Advocate and he was not liable for this action, inspite of the fact, that he has admitted the issuance and withdrawal of the notice.
8. Mr. Akhtar Naveed Deputy Advocate-General for the Government of N.-W.F.P. Contended that there is sufficient evidence on the record from which the misconduct of the respondent is discernible.
9. On 31-5-2003 this case was fixed for order and when the case was called, the respondent requested for a personal hearing and thus, an opportunity was given to him, as he was desirous to argue the case himself. The respondent was also heard at great length and he almost reinterated the same submissions as convassed by his learned counsel. The respondent submitted about the non-existance of jural relations of counsel and client. He also argued, that the issuance of notice and subsequent withdrawal of the notice was down at the instance of Abdul Waheed Khan Advocate and he has personally received no benefits out of the same. The respondent further submitted that after all, if the complainant, has a grievance, that is against the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and the respondent is neither responsible for the same nor was privy to loss sustained by the complainant.
10. It was also argued by the respondent that the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan is a commercial Institution and avoid scandles in the Media against it. It was submitted that the Corporation paid the entire defaulted amount and consequently the insurance policies of the complainant has been regularized and so the complainant has been left with no grievance either against the respondent or against the. Corporation.
11. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and with the help of learned counsel for the parties and Deputy Advocate-General have gone through the record of the case.
12. It is admitted on the record that the respondent under the instruction of Mustafa Kamal complainant issued a notice through registered Post with A.D. Card to the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Salman Mirza, Sales Manager and in which the payments of various premiums so paid through various cheques, after calculation, which comes to Rs.48840 (Forty eight thousand, Eight hundred and forty rupees), were duly mentioned. The legal notice was with respect to the regularization of insurance policies of the complainant and the same was the main dispute of the complainant with the Corporation.
13. It is also admitted on the record that without seeking instructions from his client the respondent issued a letter dated 6-6-1989 to the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan withdrawing the earlier notice with ulterior motive that the complainant has settled the matter with the Corporation, thus, the respondent without any just and plausible reasons intimated to the Corporation through the withdrawal letter that under the instructions of his client the respondent Advocate is pleased to intimate that the complainant has patched up the matter amicably with the Corporation and his grievances duly redressed.
14. The defence set up by the respondent to the effect that he had received the instfuctions from Abdul Waheed Khan Advocate Peshawar is not plausible. The onus to prove heavily lay on the respondent that he withdrew the earlier notice either under the instructions of the complainant or at the instance of Abdul Waheed Khan Advocate. There is no evidence on the record that such instructions were ever given by the complainant for withdrawal of earlier notice nor any evidence has been produced by the respondent to discharge this onus. There is no evidence on the record that either the respondent has acted in good faith or under the instructions of Abdul Waheed Khan Advocate.
15. The submissions of the respondent regarding the regularization of the insurance policies of the complainant is without any substance as there is no evidence on the record that the defaulted instlaments/premiums, subject matter of the notice dated 23-11-1988, were adjusted from the accounts of-the Corporation.
16. An Advocate enjoys a very high respect in the society and the Courts of law as well as general public repose great trust in the Advocates in the discharge of their professional duties and they are expected to act in a way so as to give a least suspicion of bias and partiality, while conducting and pleading the cause of their clients. Advocates are expected to protect and secure the genuine rights of their clients and any violation and betrayal of this sacred trust, will definitely amounts to professional misconduct.
17. Code of ethics and conduct has been prescribed for Advocates in detail, mentioned in Chapter XII of the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council 'Rules 1976 and Advocates are legally as well as morally bound to strictly abide these rules of conduct and not to violate the same.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we find the respondent/Advocate guilty of professional misconduct and order his suspension from the legal profession for a period of two years commencing from the announcement of this order. He is also directed to pay Rs.48840 mentioned in the notice from which the complainant was deprived by the misconduct of the respondent with-costs of the proceedings amounting to Rs.5,000 payable to the complainant. The respondent is directed to deposit this amount with the Secretary, N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar within 30 days from today, otherwise the same will be recovered through the process of execution by District and Sessions Judge, Peshawar under the provisions of section 44(3)(b) of the Legal Practitioner and Bar Councils Act, 1973. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.