' JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL (CHAIRMAN).---Mst. Surraya Bibi complainant (real sister of the respondent Advocate submitted a complaint to the Secretary, N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar on 5-8-1998 for taking necessary action against Sohail Khan, Advocate.
2. Brief facts as asserted in the complaint are that complainant was a School Teacher in the Provincial Education Department of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar; that her husband is residing at Faisalabad in connection with his service; that got retirement from service and was p4d an amount of Rs,three lacs as commutation of pension and G.P. Funds etc.; that her younger brother Sohail Khan respondent Advocate tempted her to invest the amount in the 'Regi Lalma' Housing Scheme which was meant for legal fraternity and plots were only allotted to Advocates, she reposed trust in her brother and gave him a sum of Rs, 1 ,75,300 for the purchase/allotment of the plots and as such he deposited Rs, 100, 1 00 for one Kanal Plot, Rs,25,100 for 5 Marlas plot and Rs,50,100 for ten Marlas plots and receipts of payment were handed over to her; that after about 2 years his brother, the respondent, , started raising a dispute with her by saying that the deposit receipts are in his name so he is the real transferee of the said plots and in this situation he was asked time and again to transfer the plots in her name or return the money to her but the respondent has refused and, thus, he utterly betrayed the confidence reposed in him by the complainant, hence the instant complainant.
3. Respondent was summoned for 26-9-1998 by the Disciplinary Committee but on the said date he absented and again notice was issued to him for 17-10-1998, on which date he appeared and was directed to submit his written reply on the next date i,e, 14-11-1998, on which date he failed to submit written reply. He was, however, directed to submit written reply within 15 days failing which he would be proceeded ex pane and the case was fixed for evidence of the parties' for 17-12-1998, but again the respondent absented himself. The Disciplinary Committee observed that respondent was using delaying tactics and prima facie a case of professional misconduct existed against him, therefore, case was referred to this tribunal for appropriate orders.
4. Before this Tribunal on 27-3-1999 the respondent was not in attendance, the conduct of the respondent before the Disciplinary Committee as reflected in the order sheets showed that he was resorting to delaying tactics and was deliberately avoiding to appear, therefore, bailable warrants of arrest in the sum of Rs,50,000 was issued against him for 8-5-1999.
5. Today both the parties are present, who were heard at quite some length.
6. The complainant at the very outset offered to the respondent that if he takes oath on the Holy Qur'an that he has not taken the amount of Rs,1,75,300 from her for booking the plots in Regi Lalma Housing Scheme for her, she would withdraw her complaint. He in response conceded that he had taken an amount of Rs,1,75,300 from the complainant and had booked three plots on payment of the said amount vide receipts No,654,780 and 781, dated 22-8-1996 and would return the amount to the complainant if she manages to resolve the money/property disputed between him and his father.
7. In view of the clean breast admission of the respondent it is manifest that the respondent- Advocate is guilty of misconduct as he betrayed the confidence of his own sister by refusing to either give her the plots purchased by her money or to return her money back.
8. An Advocate enjoys a very high position in the society and is expected to observe high standards and ethics of professional norms both inside and outside the Court and any act which is he becoming of an Advocate would render him liable for misconduct. It is established beyond any doubt that respondent betrayed the trust of his real sister who reposed confidence in him which was badly shattered. If he could betray the confidence of his own sister, than how can it be expected from him that he would maintain the trust of the others. Under Rule 134 of Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 it is the duty of every Advocate to uphold at all times the dignity and high standing of his profession, as well as his own dignity and high standing as a member thereof, and under Rule 172 Rules, (ibid), Advocate must observe the law of the land and above all he should find his honour in a deserved reputation for fidelity to private trust and to public duty as an honest man and a patriotic and loyal citizen and any betrayal of the trust in violation of the rule (ibid) will make him guilty of professional misconduct as envisaged by Rule 175-A of the Rules 1976 (Supra). In the case in hand the respondent has acted in a very irresponsible and callous manner with his own blood relation and even during the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee add' this Tribunal, he tried to prolong her agonies by resorting to the delaying tactics knowing well that she used to come all the way from Faisalabad to attend the proceedings.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, which have also been admitted by the respondent, we hold him guilty of professional misconduct and order his suspension from the roll of the practicing lawyers for a period of five years from today. We also cancel the booking of the plots booked by him in his name with the money of the complainant and direct that the money so deposited by him vide receipts Nos.654, 780 and 781, dated 22-8-1996 be returned to Mst. Surraya Bibi complainant. We also impose a cost of Rs,20.000 (Rs, twenty thousand) on the respondent, which shall be payable to the complainant. 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.