In this case, Shri Pratap Narain filed a complaint before Delhi Bar Council against Shri Y.P. Raheja, advocate. The respondent was an advocate acting for the complainant in a case. It was alleged that respondent handed over him a forged stay order while no stay order was passed by the Court in the case.
The Committee after examining the facts, evidence, etc., held that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct of serious nature. He has forged the order of the Court. Consequently, the Disciplinary Committee ordered removal of his name from the roll maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi. The Committee made it clear that no lesser than the aforesaid punishment could be imposed as the professional misconduct was of a serious nature.
In Noratanmal Chaurasia v. M.R. Murli, the Supreme Court has held that misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1966 but misconduct envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute misconduct and indiscipline which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission, whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally.
