IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27242 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.A.SAJI ROSHAN, ADVOCATE, AGED 44, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, 622, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY RESPONDENT: --------------- BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.27242 of 2010 (E) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T This case was initially heard on 02/09/2010 when after arguments, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, it was posted to today for the petitioner to appear in person and argue the case. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in person and was heard. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash DC Enquiry No.31/09 initiated against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Kerala. He also seeks a declaration that he is not guilty of the allegations levelled against him. 3. Petitioner is an advocate enrolled on the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala. On receipt of certain complaints, the Bar Council of Kerala, issued Ext.P1 proceedings calling upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against him. Accordingly, he submitted Ext.P2 reply. The reply was not satisfactory and finally, Ext.P7 memo of charges has been issued by the Bar Council of Kerala. It is seen that after completing the WP(C) No.27242/2010 -2- procedural formalities, the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee and enquiry against the petitioner was ordered. It is at that stage, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Main contention raised by the petitioner is that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the misconducts alleged against him in Ext.P7. As far as this contention of the petitioner is concerned, a memo of charges issued against a delinquent can be interfered with in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only in very exceptional cases such as where allegations in the charge sheet do not disclose misconduct against the delinquent or that the authority, who has initiated proceedings, lacks jurisdiction to issue the same or where the action of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by malafides. The contention that there is lack of evidence to substantiate the charge is no ground for interfering with the memo of charges. At this stage, this Court is also unconcerned with the truth or otherwise of the charges even. Therefore, at this stage, on the above plea of the petitioner, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P7 memo of charges. WP(C) No.27242/2010 -3- In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to urge all his contentions before the Enquiry Committee. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg