1. ' ABRAR HASSAN (MEMBER).---The brief facts of the case are that respondent Quresh Ali Sheikh was employed as Primary School Teacher with the Education Department, Government of Sindh, from 21-9-1960 up to 1-5-1979. While the respondent was in service, it appears that he joined Mr. Mazhar Ali Siddiqui, a Senior Advocate of Shikarpur as a pupil and submitted a Certificate to the Bar Council that he had received his training from Mr. Siddiqui from 15-7-1971 to 15-1-1972 as per the Rules.
2. ' It seems that after completion of his pupilage i,e, after 15-1-1972, the respondent became disinterested in pursuing his case for enrolment and it was only in or about the month of June, 1976, when he again became active and applied to the Bar Council for his viva. Voce exam. And filed an affidavit in which he explained that he had to look after his ailing father and his property and consequently his domestic circumstances did not allow him to make an application for enrolment on due date after completion of his training. Therefore, his case was processed by the Bar Council and he was allowed to appear for viva voce examination. The respondent after passing the viva voce exam. Was granted enrolment in 1976. It is pertinent to mention here that in his application for enrolment to a query "Whether he was engaged in any business, profession or vacation in Pakistan, if so, the nature thereof", he replied categorically in the negative. Ultimately, the respondent was granted Certificate No,00442 on 23-10-1976 by the Bar Council. Subsequently, on 8-111977 the respondent applied for suspension of his licence which application was granted on 5-4-1978.
3. Thereafter in January, 1980, the respondent applied for renewal of his licence which was renewed by the Bar Council.
4. ' Therefore, on 7/8 February, 1987, the respondent applied for enrolment as an Advocate of High Court and filed an Affidavit in which he stated as follows:-- "(i) That I was enrolled as an Advocate for subordinate Court by the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi on 20-10-1976.
(ii) That I am continuous practising at the Bar without any break from my enrolment as an Advocate for the subordinate Courts.
(iii) That I have completed more than 10 years of practice as an advocate for subordinate Court."
5. ' At the time of his enrolment in the High Court the respondent also filed a list of 20 cases alongwith his application in which although he gave the names of the'parties but has not deliberately disclosed the number and the year of the cases.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Munaf Shaikh, ,an Advocate hailing from Shikarpur 'filed' a complaint under section 41 of the Lekal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, stating therein that the respondent in support of his intimation had given an affidavit dated 9-8-1976 that he had been working with his father but actually he had been employed as a Primary School Teacher with the Government of Sindh. The complainant further stated that in Form A, the respondent misrepresented the facts at S. No,8 and did not disclose that he was employed with the Education Department, receiving his salaries and side by side he was doing pupilage also. It has further been complained that the respondent was enrolled as an Advocate of the lower Court in 1976 and simultaneously continued to be an employee of the Education Department and has drawn salaries therefrom up to 1978. It has further been complained that the respondent was taking training at Government Training College, Sukkur, in the year 1971 and that the result of the training was announced on 17-5-1971 when he became a qualified teacher whereas he started pupilage on 15-7-1971, after having been so qualified as a teacher and having given the bond of service for 5 years to the Education Department.
7. ' On 27-2-1993, the then Disciplinary Committee of the Sindh Bar Council, referred the matter to the Tribunal for proceeding according to law. However, when the matter came up before the then Tribunal on, - 16-11-1996 it was decided that as the Order of the Disciplinary Committee was e parte it would be in the interest of justice to allow the respondent to place his case before the Disciplinary Committee. Accordingly, the Order of the Disciplinary Committee was set aside and the case was remanded for deciding the case on merits after affording full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Thereafter the matter was heard by the then Disciplinary Committee and after making proper inquiries and conducting investigation . The Committee passed an Order, dated 14-6-1997 whereby they came to the conclusion that the allegation made by the complainant had not been rebutted and the Committee recommended prosecution of the respondent not only for professional misconduct in the capacity as an Advocate but that the respondent should also face trial for perjury on account of filing a false affidavit. Therefore, the matter was referred to this Tribunal.
8. ' On 23-12-2000, this Tribunal with the consent of the parties recorded the statements of complainant and respondent in summary form. The respondent in his statement has substantially admitted the allegations of the complainant. The allegations of the complainant are also substantiated by the documents on the file. The respondent before us has admitted the allegation and terms the same as a "lapse" and requested that a lenient view Ai the matter may be taken.
9. We are conscious of the fact that the profession of law in Pakistan does not have the required discipline and due to the absence of strict discipline in the profession the disciplinary rules are easily flouted. There are widespread complaints against individuals in the profession. Needless to say that the indiscipline and floutation of the rules by the members of the profession ultimately reflect upon the judiciary also and therefore, it will not be proper to term the deliberate concealment of the relevant facts and deliberately filing a false affidavit as mere lapse. We are fortified in our opinion by the case of Qamar Zaman Shinwari v. S. Nadir Shah Gillani, Advocate, 1996 M LD 513, in which under identical circumstances the Tribunal constituted under the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Rules, came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of gross professional misconduct and was therefore, immediately removed from practice under section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1973.
10. We have considered the evidence available on record and it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the respondent was an active Government servant as a Primary School Teacher in the Education Department and used to draw his salaries regularly therefrom and simultaneously he was conducting profession of law also. While submitting his documents to the Sindh Bar Council the respondent suppressed material facts and submitted false affidavits. This is not only against the Rules of the Bar Council but against the Cannons of Conducts and Ethics prescribed for an Advocate. The respondent suppressed material facts from the Enrolment Committee as well as from the Sindh Bar Council and this conduct is highly objectionable and cannot be condoned terming the same merely as a "lapse".
11. ' We, therefore, find the respondent guilty of perjury and professional misconduct and order his immediate removal from practice under section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1973. In this connection it is abundantly clear that the respondent has been guilty of perjury more than once and is ,liable to be prosecuted under section 191, P.P.C. However, as the respondent has profusely apologized and has requested for mercy from the Tribunal, was refrained from directing the Bar Council to commence any criminal proceedings against him .