'Grave Misconduct': Rajasthan HC Imposes 1 Lac Cost On Advocate Who Filed Original Application Without Authorization, Superimposed Sign By Xerox Machine Etc.

The court observed that the petitioner-advocate, who in more than one matters, has indulged in filing Original Applications in the Tribunal as well as writ petitions in the High Court and has personally signed the pleadings etc. without having been specifically authorised in this regard by the litigants.

It was opined by the court that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner, who has been enrolled as an Advocate post retirement from the Income Tax Department, has acted as de facto party in Judicial proceedings cannot be faulted.

Essentially, the petitioner Shri T.C. Gupta, an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, filed this writ petition for assailing the order whereby, the Tribunal, dismissed the Original Applications filed by an association in the name and style of Income-Tax Contingent Employee's Union represented by the petitioner in the capacity of a counsel holding that he was acting as a de facto party in this case. Cost of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and the matter was referred to the Bar Council of Rajasthan for necessary action against the petitioner.

The court stated that the Tribunal also noticed interpolations in the documents filed on record by the petitioner who personally verified the pleadings. Hence, the court observed that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in imposing a cost quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- upon the petitioner for such apparent misconduct.

Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing the writ petition, observed,

"Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the petitioner, who has been enrolled as an Advocate post retirement from the Income Tax Department, has acted as de facto party in Judicial proceedings cannot be faulted. The Tribunal also noticed interpolations in the documents filed on record by the petitioner who personally verified the pleadings. Hence, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in imposing cost quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- upon the petitioner for such apparent misconduct."

The Tribunal recorded the questioned findings observing that no proper resolution authorising the filing of the Original Applications was placed on the record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed the two documents having the same contents on which there was a variation in signatures/ number of signatories. The pleadings of the rejoinder were personally verified by the counsel Shri T.C. Gupta and not by the parties. The Tribunal observed that on comparing the documents filed on different dates, it became apparent that the signatures had been superimposed by using a xerox machine on an existing document.

The court agreed with the 'serious' observations of the Tribunal that grave misconduct was committed by the counsel in judicial proceedings.

The court ordered that the petitioner shall deposit the cost as directed by the Tribunal with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within next 45 days and submit a copy of receipt with the Tribunal. The court added that if the petitioner fails to deposit the cost as above, the matter shall be reported to the District Collector, Jodhpur for effecting recovery.

The petitioner, appearing in person, urged that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. He submitted that Original Applications were filed by the petitioner in a bonafide manner having been engaged as a counsel by the Union and its Member Shri Mahendra Singh for espousing the cause of the casual labourers engaged in the Income Tax Department. The Tribunal rejected the Original Applications in an absolutely perfunctory manner, he added.

He argued that the observations made and the findings recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner had not been authorised to represent the Union or that he had filed a fictitious resolution in support of the Original Applications, is absolutely groundless. He also argued that the direction given by the Tribunal imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000/- upon him, is high handed, arbitrary and unjust and hence, the same should be quashed and set aside.

Adv. Sunil Bhandari, who represents the Income Tax Department, a formal party in the proceedings, supported the order of the Tribunal urging that this Court has in more than one cases, already concluded that Shri T.C. Gupta has not been authorised by the so-called Income Tax Contingent Employee's Union to file cases on its behalf. That the Original Applications were filed by Shri T.C. Gupta before the Tribunal without proper authorisation, he added.

He further submitted that petitioner himself has signed and affirmed the pleadings before the Tribunal even though he is not a party and thus, the observation made by the Tribunal that the counsel himself de facto became the party, is substantiated by the admitted factual position.

Shri T.C. Gupta appeared in person. The respondents were represented by Adv. Sunil Bhandari and Adv. Pritam Solanki.

Case Title: T.C. Gupta v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment