1

BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.

Disciplinary Committee No.VII

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2014

Present: Sri Thammanna Setty, K.V.N.,Chairman

Sri Raja Sekhar, Ch., Member
Sri Subba Rao, Muppalla, Member

- - -

Complaint Case No. 52 of 2013

Between:
Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh
……… Complainant.

And:
G. Malleswara Rao,
Advocate,
Hyderabad.
……….. Respondent.

This complaint is referred to the Disciplinary Committee No. VII by the Bar
Council of A.P., u/s 35 (1) of Advocates’ Act, 1961 (Act 25/1961).

This case is coming on for consideration before the Disciplinary Committee No.
VII, and after giving notice to the Advocate General u/s 35 (2) of the Advocates Act,
1961 and after perusing the entire record, and, after hearing the respondent, this
Committee made the following:

ORDER

The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, submitted

a report to the Chairman, Bar Council of A.P., Hyderabad, alleging that when the

Presiding Officers of the Additional Bench are attending duties of the Circuit Bench at

Visakhapatnam on 06th and 07th September, 2012 and when the Court Officer giving

dates to the cases listed on 06-09-2012 in the Court Hall at 10:30 am, the respondent

interfered and abused in filthy language and stated that ‘who are you to give dates

etc.’. Then the Court Officer informed him that the Presiding Officers instructed her to

give dates. Then the respondent, immediately, raised his voice and stated that ‘even

though the P.O. knows that they are attending the circuit bench at

Visakhapatnam, why they have posted the cases today’ and that he also used
 2

unparliamentarily language against the Presiding Officers and when the Court Officer

informed not to use those words, the respondent stated that the staff are labourers and

have to obey the Advoctes and even though the staff of the Circuit Bench are silent and

giving respect to him, the respondent continued to abuse the staff and the language

used by him is degrading the image and reputation of the Government Employees as

well as institution which is unbearable. At the time of incident P.P. Ramayya, Advocate

and some other Advocates whose names are not known to the Court Officer and staff

members i.e. K. Madhu Kumar, Sheristadar, and Sri K. Venkateswarlu, Assistant Section

Officer, K. Pradeep, Steno-Typist were also present. Upon this incident, the Court

Officer of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Sheristadar,

Assistant Section Officer and Ste-cum-Typist together submitted a complaint to the

Chairman, narrating the incident and requesting to take necessary action against the

respondent.

2. After receipt of the said complaint, the Bar Council referred the matter to this

Disciplinary Committee No.VII. After receipt of notice, the respondent appeared and

filed his counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and also alleged that the

Registrar of State Commission is not a police station to forward complaint without

sworn affidavit of the Complainant and statement of the witnesses to the Bar Council of

A.P.,. Further, the respondent contended that the complaint is not maintainable on the

ground that the A.P. Consumer Redressal Commission falls under the Ministry of

Department of Civil Supplies Food and Agriculture (Civil Supplies) and the present

complaint has no legal embargo. The respondent further submitted that he did not

commit any professional mis-conduct and on the other hand the complainant has

committed mis-conduct, breach of trust of call work and committed mistake on

06-09-2012 and that when the respondent attended to the Commission in connection

with case of FA 366/2011 at the time of calling case numbers and posted all the cases

to 26-09-2012. Against which, the respondent protested the reading of case list and

other Advocates also supported him. Further, the respondent alleged that the reason

for posting all the matters for one day is that the complainant is under the hands of

unsocial elements. Therefore, the complainant changed the fixed date. The
 3

respondent requested the Bar Council of A.P., to drop all further proceedings or

otherwise implead the Registrar of Commission with a show cause notice why the

complaint submitted by the respondent has not been forwarded and maintained

partially as a public servant and similarly may be implead the President of Association of

the Commissioner for his utterance to the respondent-Advocate who is a stranger to

him or permission may be given to file impleading the petition against the Registrar and

President.

3. Thereafter, the respondent filed additional counter along with the petition which

was allowed. In the additional counter, the respondent alleged that there is a

established procedural process adopted by both the Consumer State Commission when

all the members are not holding office, cause list will be prepared before the other

Commissioner and quorum to not there single member will call cause of the case list for

the date in the hall and adjourn the case as per the convenience of the Advocates and

parties and that the complainant hatched conspiracy and that the complainant has no

business to read the date without calling the matter in the presence of the Advocates in

the hall. The respondent has not committed any professional misconduct under Section

35 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the complaint filed by the complainant only to

protect her rude behaviour against the respondent and other Advocates present on the

date and that the respondent informed the Registrar about the incident who did not

take any action against the complainant for making incorrect public documents like

cause list which do not belongs to the complainant and that the entire matter arose

because of the unsocial elements and in view of the above, the respondent requested

the Committee to drop the proceedings by dismissing the complainant’s case.

4. Basing upon the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES :
1. Whether the respondent has committed any professional misconduct u/s 35(1)
of Advocates’ Act?
2. Whether the respondent is liable for punishment under the provisions of A.P.
Advocates’ Act, 1961?
3. To what relief?
 4

5. After issuing notice, the Bar Council of A.P. engaged Mr.A. Sameer Kumar Reddy,

Advocate, to represent the case and Mr. K.Venkateswarlu, Advocate filed Vakalat on

behalf of the respondent. Inspite of several adjournments, the de facto complainant

failed to adduce evidence on their behalf. Finally, on 21-12-2013, as the de facto

complainant failed to file their chief examination affidavits, the Committee treated that

the complainant has no evidence and evidence of the complainant is closed. The

respondent filed a memo stating that the respondent also has no evidence on his behalf.

Consequently, the matter is posted to 19-01-2014 for arguments. On 19-01-2014 also

the defacto complainant called absent. But, the learned counsel for the respondent

addressed arguments on behalf of the respondent.

6. Though the complainant made so many wild allegations against the respondent,

the complainant did not adduce any evidence. Therefore, under Law any amount of

pleading cannot be looked into without evidence. The learned counsel for the

respondent cited the judgment reported in AIR 2013 (NOC) 128 (AP). The facts of the

case reported are entirely different from the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, the

judgment reported in AIR 2013 (NOC) 128 (AP) is not applicable to the case on hand.

7. The complainant did not adduce any evidence in support of their complaint and

hence the complainant miserably failed to prove their case and establish the allegations

made against the respondent. Therefore, the complainant did not deserves for any

consideration, consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed.

RESULT :
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs in the circumstances
of the case.
Sd/- Thammanna Setty, K.V.N.,Chairman
Sd/- Raja Sekhar, Ch. Member
Sd/- Subba Rao, Muppalla, Member

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

ORAL

For Complainant: For Respondent:

- None - - None -
 5

DOCUMENTARY
For Complainant: For Respondent:

- Nil - - Nil -

(BY ORDER )

(N.Renuka)
Registrar, Disciplinary Committee No.VII &
Secretary, Bar Council of the State of A.P.
- - -