Personal and Professional Misconduct – Where do you Draw the Line?

The disciplinary committee of the BCI took notice of the fact that in relation to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent-advocate, no criminal proceedings had been initiated by the appellant-landlord by filing a complaint petition. No charge sheet had been filed either by the police in relation to the occurrence dated October 26, 1993, for which a First Information Report had been lodged. It was further accepted that the respondent-advocate had not been appearing in the rent control proceedings as an advocate but as an individual. Keeping in view the fact that till the date of the impugned order being passed, the appellant (Rao) had neither produced any document to substantiate any follow-up action on his part in respect of the complaint filed by him before the police authority, nor filed any private complaint, the disciplinary committee was prima facie of the view that there was no reliable information to show that the incidents had occurred. Further, it was noticed that the first respondent had appeared in the litigation not as an advocate but as a litigant in person. Therefore, the disciplinary committee of the BCI passed orders refusing to enquire into the complaint of misconduct having regard to the facts of the case. ..