' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This Intra-Court Appeal proceeds against the judgment dated 28-6- 1976 of a learned Single Judge, in Chamber of this Court whereby Writ Petition No,1551 of 1975 filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. The respondent is a Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan. This Institute has been constituted under the provisions of Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961. On 20-8-1974 the respondent was informed that the Investigation Committee shall hear him qua the complaints against him which are as follows:-- "(1) You while acting as partner of the firm of M/ s. Rahim Jan & Co., Chartered Accountants had improperly terminated the services of the following articles and audit clerks on 7-6-1972:
(i) Mr. Saghir Hussain.
(ii) Mr. Muhammad Saleem Butt.
(iii) Mr. Ibrahim Sheikh.
(iv) Mr. Ayyaz Mahmood.
(v) Mr. Riaz Ahmed Sheikh.
(2) The Council sent you directive in their Letter No,1/23/CA-72 dated the 21st February, 1973 to issue no-objection certificate to the above mentioned clerks acting under the authority of Bye-Laws 75- A and 80-A of Chartered Accountants Bye-Laws. You have failed to comply with the directive of the Council.
(3) The Investigation Committee is of the view that you have attracted section 19 of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961, Bye-Laws 99 of the Chartered Accountants Bye-Laws, 1961 and also clauses 24 and 25 of the Schedule "C" of the said Bye-Laws."
' This letter was replied by the respondent on 29-8-1974 complaining that the allegations are old and alleging that the Investigation Committee is partial and prejudiced. Yet another charge was levelled against him on 14-9-1974 pertaining to the statement issued by him in the Press. This letter was replied by the respondent on 21-9-1974. In this letter also the allegation of bias against the said Investigation Committee was repeated.
3. It appears that the respondent did not put in appearance before the Investigation Committee on either of the dates fixed in the aforesaid notices. A notice was then issued on 11-11-1974. He was again called upon to appear before the Committee on 23-11-1974. He did not appear and again on 7-12-1974 a notice was issued calling upon him to appear on 21-12-1974. He however, did not appear. Consequently proceedings were taken and vide order dated 23-12-1974, he was held guilty of professional misconduct and his name was ordered to be removed from the Membership of the Institute. It was on 7-7-1975 when the said writ petition was filed which was allowed vide the impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent had alleged. Bias in the said reply to notice in general terms without any particular. It was only before this Court that he alleged bias against three members of the said Committee namely (1) Rao Ahsan Khan, (2) Mr. Hameed Chaudhary and (3) Mr. Saleem Malik. According to the learned counsel Mr. Hameed Chaudhary did not participate in the proceedings and in fact he resigned from the Committee before the decision.
Regarding Rao Ahsan Khan no personal animus was alleged while bias against Mr. Saleem Malik he neither alleged nor proved. The Committee comprises of six members and all the said members passed the said order. Learned counsel further contends that even if the learned Single Judge, in chamber of this Court had concluded that the said members were biased, then the appropriate order would have been to remand back the case to the proper forum for de novo proceedings.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Committee was so biased that the respondent did not expect any justice and did not appear before the same. Learned counsel also supports the impugned judgment inasmuch as it decides the allegations against the respondent on their merits.
5. We have gone through the record of the writ petition and this Intra-Court Appeal, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It is rather unfortunate that this Intra-Court appeal which was filed in the year 1976 could not be decided for about 27 yeaRs, It is an agreed position that all the said members against whom allegation of bias was made and findings have been given that they were biased, are no longer holding the said offices. For order we propose to pass in this Intra-Court appeal we will not be dilating upon the said question as it will be an exercise in mere futility. However, we do agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that after the said finding, the further exercise undertaken in the impugned judgment of declaring the charges to be baseless or giving a finding that there do not constitute misconduct within the meaning of .The said law, ought not to have been undertaken. The respondent admittedly is a Member of the said \Institute and is governed by the said Ordinance and bye-laws framed thereunder. He was to be judged by his peers in accordance with the said bye-laws framed under the said Ordinance and this Court ought not to have substituted itself for the said forum. We also find that while undertaking the said exercise the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant in reply to the writ petition was completely ignored. Had the said counter-affidavit been examined it would have been found that the charges involved question of fact which were to be resolved by the said forum.
6. Both the learned counsel inform us that there had been some significant amendments in the said Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961 during the pendency of this Intra-Court Appeal. We find that the provisions relating to misconduct and consequent proceedings have now been incorporated in the Ordinance itself in Chapter VA of the same. It provides for an enquiry by the Investigation Committee and further section 20-D provides that in case the Council intends to remove the name of the Member from the Register for a period exceeding five years or A permanently (as was done in the present case) it shall not make any order but refer the case to this Court with its recommendations thereon. The case is then to be heard by this Court in terms of section 20-F of the said Ordinance.
7. For all what has been discussed above this Intra Court Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified inasmuch as it is directed that the Investigation Committee of the said Institute to conduct its proceedings in accordance with the said provision of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961 after a notice to the respondent of a date of hearing to be fixed in the matter and thereafter to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the said Ordinance.
No order as to costs.