Supreme Court overturns Bar Council's verdict against advocate after complainant retracts allegations.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the Disciplinary Committee's decision of the Bar Council of India (BCI) that had found an advocate guilty of professional misconduct. The decision comes in the appeal case of Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh, where the appellant, advocate Monty Goyal, was previously penalized for alleged negligence in handling a quashing petition related to an FIR.
The case originated when Navrang Singh, the respondent-complainant, filed a complaint against Monty Goyal under the Advocates Act, 1961, citing professional negligence. Singh accused Goyal of failing to deposit costs which resulted in the dismissal of a quashing petition related to an FIR filed against Singh. However, the situation evolved when Singh later filed a sworn affidavit expressing satisfaction with Goyal’s services and withdrew his complaint.
The initial disciplinary proceedings commenced after Singh, aggrieved by the advocate's alleged failure to deposit costs, lodged a complaint with the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. During these proceedings, the advocate and the complainant reached an amicable settlement, leading the High Court to waive the enhanced costs and eventually quash the FIR.
Despite Singh's withdrawal of the complaint, the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI adjudicated the matter and found Goyal guilty of misconduct, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh. They also threatened suspension of Goyal's license should he fail to comply.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court, with Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta presiding, meticulously reviewed the facts and found significant procedural lapses. The Court noted the absence of evidence from the complainant and a lack of opportunity for cross-examination, highlighting that the Disciplinary Committee overlooked Singh's affidavit, which clearly expressed his satisfaction and withdrawal of allegations.
The Court emphasized that the substratum of the complaint dissolved once the complainant retracted his allegations and affirmed that the advocate's professional conduct was satisfactory. Consequently, the judgment from the Disciplinary Committee was deemed unsustainable both in fact and law.
The Supreme Court's ruling to set aside the prior judgment underscores the importance of due process and the evidentiary basis required in disciplinary proceedings. This verdict not only clears the advocate of the misconduct charges but also reinforces the significance of thorough and fair legal processes.
Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act, 1961 Sections 35, 38
Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845276
