MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN (MEMBER) ---This single judgment will dispose of the complaint bearing Numbers T/1 of 1992 and T/5 of 1995 as both pertains to Professional Misconduct and have been filed against Aurangzeb Orakzai, Advocate. Peshawar and common legal and factual questions against the same respondent/Advocate are involved in both of the complaints.
2. Complaint No.T/1 of 1992 was filed by Mst. Sarwat complainant on 2`'-8-1991 in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar alleging therein, that her husband Muhammad Rasheed and son Ali Hyder hadbeen arrested by the C. I. D. Police on the charges of smuggling Narcotic. On coming to know about the arrest of her husband, the complainant came to Peshawar to enquire about the facts of the case and to arrange for the bail of her husband and release of the vehicle. She further alleged that during her first visit on 4-5-1991 she came in contact with the one Gohar Ali shah r/o Lakar Mandi, Peshawar and on narration of the facts regarding the arrest of the husband and son of the complainant the said Gohar Ali Shah received a sum of Rs.27,000 for engaging a counsel, payment to police officers and other allied expenses. The complainant further alleged that on her second visit to Peshawar on, 4-5-1991, the said Gohar Ali Shah advised her to engage Aurangzeb Orakzai, Advocate/respondent as counsel, who according to Gohar Ali Shah was a prominent counsel having contacts with Magistrates and police personnel. And in this way the complainant engaged the respondent as counsel and the total fee was settled as Rs.87,000 (Eighty-seven thousand) out of which Rs.10,000 was the fee for professional duties of the respondent and according to the respondent, the rest had to be paid to the concerned official/officers of the police for the release of the husband and son of the complainant. This amount of Rs.87,000 was paid by the complainant to the respondent.
3. Complaint No.T/5 of 1995 was filed by one Sajjad Hussain r/o Chaher, Tehsil and District Chakwal in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar on 13-5-1993 against the same respondent Mr. Aurangzeb Orakzai. The allegations in the latter complaint against the respondent summarized. In brief are that the respondent met the complainant in a Tablighi-ljtima (Congregation of preaching Islam) and there the respondent introduced himself as an Advocate to the complainant. The complainant sought the advice of the respondent in a murder case in which the uncle of the complainant had been murdered and the respondent undertook to conduct this case on payment of Rs.40,000 (forty thousand) as according to the respondent Rs.20,000 was the fee and the remaining amount will defray other expenses of the case. The grievance of the complainants in both the cases is that, the respondent never conducted their cases and neither he returned the fee received nor rendered any professional duties to the complainants and as the respondent has committed a gross professional misconduct as envisaged under the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder has prayed for taking suitable legal action against the respondent.
4. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondent and issued notices to the respondent to appear before the learned Members of the Committee. In Complaint No.T/5 of 1995 the respondent one appeared before the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council on 29-7-1995 and thereafter absented himself. In Complaint No.T/1 of 1992 the respondent submitted his written statement. The Disciplinary Committee' recorded the statement of the complainant and that of the respondent/Advocate and the Committee after considering the data available on the record vide its findings dated -9-10-1992 and 2-9-1995 respectively, referred the matter to this Tribunal for final adjudication.
5. In the written statement of the respondent the allegations contained in the complaint were hotly contested. It was however admitted in the written statement, that the case of the complainant's husband and son was initially being conducted by Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Durrani, Advocate and later on, the respondent was engaged and the total fee received by the respondent was Rs.40,000 and not Rs.87,000 as alleged by the complainant in her complaint. The respondent further asserted that the bail application was argued before the learned Sessions Judge, Peshawar, but as a prima facie case existed against the accused, thus their bail application was rejected and furthermore, he engaged for the said accused Mr. Tasleem Hussain, Advocate in the High Court and paid him his fee from the pocket of the respondent. But the bail application was, however, rejected by the august Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. The respondent termed the complaint to be false, uncalled for and bereft of legal sanctity. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the same and awarding of severe punishment to the complainant.. .
6. In his statement recorded before the Disciplinary Committee on 28-11-1991, the respondent agreed to pay Rs.54,000 to the complainant in instalments, his statement recorded on oath, in verbatim is reproduced as under:--- "The contents of the complaint were heard. I agree to pay the sum of Rs.54,000 (Fifty-four thousand) in two instalments within a period of two months. First instalment of Rs.27,000 (Twenty- seven thousand) will be paid on 26-12-1991 and the remaining Rs.27,00Q on 28-1-1992 before the counsel of the complainant. "
On 26-12-1991, it seems, that the respondent paid Rs.20,000 (Twenty thousand) to the complainant as is evident from her statement dated 26-12-1991 and for the remaining Rs.7,000 the respondent requested for time till 15th January 1992. The record shows that neither the balance instalment of - Rs.7,000 nor the remaining Rs.27,000 has been refunded to the complainant. However, the respondent submitted an application in the shape of an under-taking dated 13-2-1992 and in which he undertook to deposit, the balance amount of Rs.34,000 with the Deciplinary Committee within 15 days from 13-2-1992. But in spite of the undertaking the respondent did not 'abide by the same, but the record shows his total failure to pay the agreed sum to the complainant.
7. Malik Hamid Saeed, learned Additional Advocate-General mainly' relied on the admission in the statement of the respondent wherein, the factum of the receipt and part repayment of a sum of Rs.54,000 was admitted by the respondent on oath in his statement before the Committee and his part payment of Rs.20,000 to the complainant and contended, that the conduct of the respondent in receiving the money from the complainant and refusing to do his professional duties was grossly improper and amount to professional misconduct under the provisions-of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. The learned Additional Advocate-General specifically referred to rules 153, 154 and 155 of the rules abovementioned and relied on a judgment of Karachi High Court Abdul Aziz Chaudhry v. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik, Advocate reported in PLD 1964 Kar. Page 630 and contended that the conduct of the respondent, comes with in the four corners of professional misconduct and his enrolment certificate/licence to practice is bailable to cancellation and prayed for the removal of the respondent's name from practising the legal profession.
8. Contentions of the learned Additional Advocate-General duly considered. The respondent was directed by this Tribunal on 9-7-1995 to deposit the balance instalment of Rs.7,000 with the Secretary of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar, which he failed to deposit. Again on 10-9-1995 the counsel for the respondent Mr. Tasleem Hussain, Advocate stated at the bar, that he will produce the respondent before the Tribunal on 8-10-1995 and he will deposit the amount of Rs.7,000 as ordered by this Tribunal. When the case came for hearing on 12-10-1995 none was present on behalf of the respondent and thus he was placed ex parte.
9. Perusal of the record shows, that the conduct of the respondent before the Disciplinary Committee as is evident from the various order sheets and as well as before this Tribunal was highly objectionable. He being an Advocate, taking undue advantage from his position as an Advocate tried his level best to frustrate the process of this Tribunal. His undertaking to repay the money and then his non-abiding by the same has really perpetuated the agony of the complainant, who hails from a far-flung area of District Kasur, Punjab and similar is the position of the complainant in Complaint No.T/5 of 1995 who travels from Chakwal to persue his grievances.
10. Perusal of the record reveals, and the same fins been admitted by the respondent that he has received the amount from the complainant as mentioned in their complaints and has failed to render his professional duties as an Advocate. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondent, even to suggest that he ever appeared in Courts for the complainant. This conduct of the respondent is unbecoming of an Advocate, who enjoys a very high position in the society, and the conduct is stinkingly abominable in both the cases, on two occasions, he received the money from his clients and at the same time abstained to perform his professional duties as an Advocate.
The money of the client is always a sacred trust with their counsel and any betrayal of this trust will definitely amount to a professional misconduct as held by their Lordships in PLD 1964 Kar page 630 cited by the learned Additional Advocate-General, N.-W. F. P,
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the above cases, we find the respondent guilty of professional misconduct and order the cancellation of his licence to practise the legal profession and his immediate removal from the legal profession under section 41, subsection (1) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. We are also of the firm view that the complainants in these complaints have suffered a lot by traversing the Courts premises for sufficiently long time. Thus we impose a costs of Rs.34;000 (Thirty four thousand) and Rs.40,000 (Forty thousand) on the respondent under section 44(1) executable under subsection (3-a) of the Act ibid, by Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, which on recovery will be deposited with the Secretary N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar, payable to Mst. Sarwat and Sajjad Hussain complainants respectively.