MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN (MEMBER).---On 29th July, 1997 Qari Muhammad Humayun and four others complainants filed a joint complaint in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar, alleging therein, that the respondent Raja Javed Afandi Advocate, who is practising in District Mansehra, received a sum of Rs.1,02,000 for securing visas and service for the complainants abroad. After receiving the money and promising for providing service, the respondent, back out and declined to either return the money or provide the visas and service to the complainant.
2. It is further alleged, that on the repeated approach of the complainant, the respondent issued a cheque dated 10-7-1997 for Rs.1,02,000 of Muslim Commercial Bank Qalandar Abad which on presentation for encashment to the Bank was dishonoured. This fact was again communicated to the respondent, who issued a receipt to the complainants on 17-7-1997, but thereafter, the respondent absented himself and his whereabouts were not known.
3. Further allegations in the complaint ace that the respondent is carrying on visa business and defrauding the public under the robes of Advocacy and legal profession, and is constantly committing professional misconduct so it was prayed by the complainants, that disciplinary action under the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act be taken against the respondent..
4. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent submitted written statement on 21-11-1997, wherein the allegations in the complaint were controverted. It was averred that the complainant Qari Muhammad Humayun is himself carrying on visa business and the complaint is the outcome of personal rivalry grudge and malice.
5. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Pesahwar recorded the evidence of the complainant on 27-12-1997 on which date the respondent absented himself and the case was referred to this Tribunal for final adjudication. Notice was issued to the respondent and on 25-4- 1998, the respondent submitted that he had filed an application for the review of the ex parte. Order of Reference to the Disciplinary Committee which has not been disposed of. Similarly another application was submitted by the respondent to this Tribunal praying therein that the ex parte proceedings be set aside, which application was accepted on payment of costs of Rs. Two thousands and the case was sent to the Disciplinary Committee for recording the evidence of the respondent.
6. The respondent, as usual, again resorted to delaying tactics and started seeking adjournments and failed to produce evidence and the case was again referred by the Disciplinary Committee on 26-9-1998 to this Tribunal.
7. The complainant mainly relied on the cheque dated 10-7-1997 for the refund of the amount received by the respondent and on a receipt dated 17-7-1997 issued by the respondent for Rs.1,02,000 which on presentation, was dishonoured by the Muslim Commercial Bank vide slip dated 12-7-1997. It is argued, that an Advocate, legally cannot carry on business or be a salarised person, while he is in legal profession, under the canons of conduct prescribed for Advocates and any violation of the same would attract the penal provisions and would amount to professional misconduct.
8. S. Yunas Jan learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended, that the respondent has not violated any rule of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 and has thus, not committed any professional Misconduct elaborating his view-point, the learned Counsel further submitted that there was no jural relationship of Counsel and clients between the parties and the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 are not attracted as envisaged by section 41 of the Act ibid.
9. Perusal of the record would show that against the respondent various complains of professional Misconduct were instituted in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar the details of which are as under:- -
(a) A.I Khan v. Raja Javed Afandi Advocate.
(b) Mst. Gulshan v. -do-
(c) Karam Elahi v. -do- Allegations in all these complaints are that the respondent either received the fee and avoided to perform his duties or resorted to betrayal of the trust of his clients reposed in him as an Advocate.
In the first noted case a warning was given to him on 6-7-1996 and in the second complaint, the respondent returned an amount of Rs.7000 to Mst. Gulshan complainant before this Tribunal while the last mentioned complaint is still pending before the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council.
10. The complainant has produced his evidence and has proved the issuance of cheque by the respondent and on presentation of the same to the Bank by the complainant, it was dishonoured and thereafter the respondent issued a receipt for the re-payment of the money copies of which are on the file and are Exh.P.A to Exh.P.C. In rebuttal the respondent has hot produced any evidence acid has always adopted Fabian attitude before the Disciplinary Committee as well as before this Tribunal and thus, the allegations in the complaint stood proved and unrebutted.
11. There is evidence on the record that the respondent received a sum of Rs.1,02,000 from the complainants for providing them visas and service abroad and on his failure, even refused to return the hard-earned money of the complainants, which conduct is prima facie unbecoming of a Counsel and amounts, to violation of legal ethics as prescribed but the Legal Practitioners and Bar councils Rules 1976.
12. Under Rule 175 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules 1576; an Advocate cannot carry on any others profession or business, while he is in legal profession wad any violation of the above rule will amount to professional Misconduct under Rule 175-A of the Rules ibid.
13. An Advocate enjoys a very high position in the society and is the custodian of the rights of the people and he is always expected to conduct himself in such a way so s to uphold the high standards, dignity and respect of the profession both wit to and outside the Court. Any professional or other misconduct of an Advocate will make him liable for disciplinary action and will attract the provisions of section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council, Act 1973.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances f the case narrated above, I we find the respondent guilty of profession misconduct and order his immediate removal from the profession. The misappropriated amount of Rs.102,000 be recovered from the respondent and paid to the complainants, with costs of the proceedings amounting to Rupees twenty five thousands under section 41 read with section 44 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils, Act payable to the N.- W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar.