MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN (MEMBER).---This single judgment will dispose of Complaint No.T/3 of 1994 and Complaint No.T/6 of 1995, both titled Qamar zaman Shinwari v. S. Nadir Shah Gillani, Advocate as both pertain to professional misconduct, in which parties are the same and common legal and factual questions against the same respondent are involved. On 10-6-1993 Qamar Zaman Shinwari complainant filed a complaint in the N.-W.F.P.
Bar Council Peshawar, alleging therein that the respondent namely S. Nadir Shah, Advocate was serving in the Education Department as Theology Teacher since 1974. Since then, he is in active Government service and is posted as such in Government High School No.4, Kohat. He is receiving salary from Education Department and at the same time secured the Law Decree during his tenure of service. It is further alleged in the complaint that his apprenticeship period of six months was also completed by him while he was in service. Further allegations in the complaint are that the said respondent is involved in criminal cases under section 468/471, P.P.C. Read with 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act and section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code which are still pending trials in a competent Court of law awaiting its decisions.
2. That complaint No.T/6 of 1995 has also been filed by Qamar Zaman Shinwari through which he has prayed for the cancellation of the enrolment certificate of High Court of the respondent on the same grounds. Thus the complainant has prayed that, as the respondent has committed a professional misconduct under the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder, and thus is liable to be removed from practice.
3. That the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent submitted his written statement on 26-8-1993 in which he denied the allegations as contained in the complaint. The filing of the complaint was termed to be baseless, vexatious and motivated by political rivalry. It was also averred that some civil suits are also under trial against the complainant in the Civil Courts.
4. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council recorded the evidence of the complainant on 7-4-1994 and the case Was adjourned to 26-5-1994 for the evidence of the respondent. On the request of the respondent the case was adjourned to 21-7-1994 but on the said date the respondent was absent and the learned members of the Committee after considering the evidence available on the record and hearing the complainant referr9d the matter to this Tribunal vide order dated 21-7-1994 for final adjudication.
5. In proof of the allegations complainant has produced Abdul Jabbar Secretary as P. W.1 who produced the entire record regarding the enrolment of the respondent as an Advocate of the lower Court as well as Peshawar High Court Peshawar. Qamar Zaman Shinwari Headmaster, Government High School No.4, Kohat appeared as P. W.2 and placed on file the entire record of service of the respondent Exh.PW.2/1 and Exh.PW.2/2. The relevant service record of the' respondent is Exh. PA/8 to Exh. PA/21.
6. The respondent was served through notices to appear before the Tribunal, who attended the Tribunal on 21-5-1995 on which date the case was adjourned to 25-6-1995. On 25-6-1995 the respondent absented himself and thus he was proceeded ex parte.
7. Perusal of the statement of P.W.1 Abdul Jabbar Secretary, N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar would show that the intimation form regarding the starting of apprenticeship of the respondent was received in the office of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council on 15-10-1992 according to which the respondent started his apprenticeship with Syed Shaudjauddin Wasti, Advocate Kohat on 15-9-1992 vide photostat copy Exh.PW1/1. On the completion of his six months' apprenticeship the respondent submitted his papers for enrolment as an Advocate of the lower Courts on 15-3-1993, the photostat copies of the relevant documents are Exh. PW 1 /2 to Exh. PW.1 / 14 on file. Exh. PW I /4 is an affidavit of the respondent wherein he has stated on oath before the Oath Commissioner that neither any criminal proceedings has been initiated against him nor he is in any Government service even in Form 'A' copy Exh.PW.I/5, the respondent in column No.9 stated that he does not hold any Government office/appointment on the strength of these documents the respondent was enrolled as an Advocate of the lower Courts by the Enrolment Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar on 18-3-1993 by its order copy Exh.PWi/15, and thereafter, completing the two years' practice in the subordinate Courts the respondent was enrolled as an Advocate of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar on 18-5-1995.
8. Perusal of the statement of P.W.2 Qamar Zaman Shinwari, Headmaster Government High School No.4, Kohat would show that the respondent was posted as Theology Teacher in the said school on 13-2-1990 and the respondent used to draw the salary regularly vide Service Book and "Acquittance roll" copies Exhs.PW.2/1, 2/2 and Exh.PA/21. Perusal of these documents would show that the respondent vide Exh.PA/21 received Scooter Allowance and G.P. Fund Advance up to 1-12-1992. The attendance register of the school copy Exh.PW2/5 (nine sheets) would show that the respondent used to make himself present by affixing his signature on the attendance register and thus on this evidence, the complainant has prayed that as the respondent was in active Government service during his apprenticeship and even now he is in Government service, his enrolment certificates issued to him by the Enrolment Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council both for practice as an Advocate of the lower Court as well as High Court are liable to cancellation.
9. Mr. Malik Hamid Saeed learned Additional Advocate-General, Government of N.-W.F.P. Appearing for the complainant mainly relied on the documentary evidence available on the record and contended that as the respondent was and still is in Government service and cannot associate himself with the legal profession, hence is liable to be removed from the roll of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council.
The learned Additional Advocate-General further contended that if a person is in Government service or is otherwise a salaried officer/official he is debarred from practising the legal profession under section 175 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976, which has been duly framed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. He further contended, that the violation of these rules amounts to professional misconduct.
10. Contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General in context with the documentary evidence available on record duly considered. It is proved on the record that the respondent is an active Government servant as Theology Teacher in the Education Department of Government of N.-W.F.P. And posted as such in Government High School No.4, Kohat. The respondent used to draw salary regularly from the Education Department up to 1-12-1992 and the Advance Scooter Allowance and G.P. Fund received by respondent is still outstanding against him. The respondent while submitting his documents to the Enrolment Committee of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council has suppressed all these material facts and has submitted a false affidavit that he is neither a Government official/officer nor a salaried person which is violation of rule 175 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976. These rules have prescribed cannons of conduct for the Advocates and any violation of these cannons of conducts would amount to professional misconduct as envisaged under rule 175-A of the Rules ibid. The conduct of the respondent by suppressing these material facts from the Enrolment Committee is highly deplorable and unbecoming of an Advocate who enjoys a very high and esteemed position in society, any conduct contrary to this code of conduct must be sternly dealt with.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the 'case narrated above we find the respondent guilty of gross professional misconduct and thus, order his immediate removal from practice under section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 as far as the outstanding Government dues against the respondent is concerned, the complainant should seek his remedy in the proper forum if so advised in the matter.