MOOTHAM, J. - (1.) THIS is a difficult case. The Bar Council Tribunal has found the charge of professional misconduct which it framed against the Advocate of inordinate delay in the presentation of a petition, not to be proved, but the correctness of that finding has been challenged before us. In considering this matter I think that in the first place it is convenient to state shortly the facts which are not in dispute.
(2.) THE complainant had been a lower division clerk in the Central Excise Department, but his services were terminated by a notice which expired on 30 -6 -1956. He was then residing in Rampur, and on the 4th July he came to Allahabad to instruct an Advocate of this Court to file a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of having notice terminating his services quashed. The Advocates services were engaged and he prepared the requisite petition and affidavit. The affidavit was sworn by the complainant at 6.30 p.m. on Friday, the 13th July, and the complainant returned to Rampur that night. The High Court, which was then closed for the vacation, reopened on the following day, the Courts sittings recommencing on Monday, the 16th July. In August the complainant wrote a letter to the Advocates office (as none of the complainants letters were preserved it is not certain to whom they were actually addressed) asking for information about the progress of his petition. To this letter the Advocates head clerk, Raunaq Hussain, replied on the 8th August as follows : "Received your letter. No order has yet been passed in your writ. When any order is passed I shall inform you at once. You may remain contended." At the end of October the complainant wrote again and on the 2nd November the head clerk sent a post card to the complainant saying "Received your letter. No order has yet been passed in your writ. But now the argument will be made soon and I will inform you of the result immediately. You may remain contended (sic)."
(3.) ON the 22nd November the Advocate signed the petition.;