' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN (MEMBER).---This judgment will dispose of an appeal filed by Azim Kan appellant challenging the vires of the order of the Disciplinary Committee of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar dated 25-8-2001, vide which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.
2. Necessary facts forming the background of these proceedings are, that on 7-6-2001, Azim Khan complainant filed a complaint in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar, alleging therein, that the respondents/Advocates obtained Rs,15,000 from the complainant, in order to, secure a job for him in the Frontier Constabulary. The respondent could not arrange for or secure a job as promised and thus, the complainant demanded the refund of money, out of which the respondents refunded Rs,4,000 while the remaining Rs,11,000 is still outstanding against the respondents which they are not willing to refund, and so, it was prayed that strict legal action should be taken against the respondents.
3. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated the proceedings against the respondents and they submitted separate written statements, denying the allegations contained in the complaint. However, it was admitted that, the said amount was paid to one Manu Paracha a friend of Ashfaq Hussain, Advocate, Peshawar, out of which Rs,11,000 is outstanding against him, while Rs,4,000 has been paid to the complainant.
4. The learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee, Peshawar, after considering the data available on record and hearmg the complainant dismissed the complaint vide impugned order and hence the present appeal by the complainant. The reasons which found favour with the lower forum, were that as the allegations contained in the complaint have got no nexus with the professional duties of the respondent, hence not amenable to the jurisdiction of Disciplinary Committee of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar.
5. We have heard the parties as well as Deputy Advocate-General for the Government of N.-W.F.P.
And have perused the record.
6. On 25-1-2002, the complainant submitted an application that he has patched up the matter with the respondents and requested for the withdrawal of the appeal. As the allegations contained in the complaint and proceedings initiated by the lower forum are with respect to misconduct of the respondents so the same cannot be patched up by way of compromise. Once misconduct is alleged and proved on the record, the withdrawal or compromise of the case will not wash away the stigma of professional misconduct.
7. The question of withdrawal of the complaint of professional misconduct came for consideration before the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal in a case titled Muhammad Amin v. M. Asghar Khokar, Advocate reported in 1992 CLC page 1556 where in his Lordship Mr. Justice Irshad Hassan Khan the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, as he then was, held that even if the parties enter into a compromise and the respondent accused undertakes to return the money, will not wash away the stigma of misconduct committed by him. Furthermore, even, the withdrawal of a complaint will not exonerate the respondent, because in a case of misconduct no withdrawal can exonerate, the respondent. However, the same can be taken as mitigating circumstances while determining the quantum of punishment. The case of Asghar Khokhar referred to above has consistently, been followed in Irshad Khan v. Gohar Rehman Khatak, Advocate reported in 2000 MLD page 1264 Wajid Ali v. Zafar Khalil, Advocate reported in 2000 MLD page 1275 and Ali Rehman v. Zaheerud Din Baber, Advocate reported in 2001 MLD page 895 so the application for withdrawal is rejected.
8. It is on the record that the respondents under the robes of Advocacy had obtained Rs,15,000 from the complainant for securing a job for him in Frontier Constabulary, which was not the job of the respondents and they have acted in a way which was unbecoming of a counsel. Once the amount was admitted to have been received by the respondents directly or through Manu-Paracha a friend of the respondents, was under the garb of legal profession and under the robes of an Advocate, was thus, amenable to the jurisdiction of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Before us the appellant admitted that he has Rs,15,000 from the respondents and his claim to that extent has been satisfied.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Disciplinary Committee, of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar dated 25-8-2001 and find the respondents guilty of professional misconduct, but taking lenient view of the matter, reprimand the respondents with a costs of Rs,5,000 i,e, the costs of the proceedings, payable by both the respondents in equal shares to the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar within a month.