Chopra, J. - (1.) CH . Ram Singh having been duly enfolded as a Pleader started practising somewhere a 1948 at and, In the month of Jan. 1951 he elected a member of the local legislative assembly and as he was later included in the Council of Ministers of Patiala & East Punjab States Union, the operation of his licence was ended by the order of the High Court dated 1952. On 12 -3 -1953 Ch. Ram Singh applied for the restoration of his licence because he had ceased to be Minister & wanted to resume practice at the Before any order could be passed on Ch. Singh's application, it was brought to my notice that not only the election of Ch. Ram Singh as a member of the legislative assembly of the State had been set aside but he had been disqualified for being a member of Parliament or Legislature of any State for a period of six years because he was guilty of major corrupt practices. As a perusal of the order of the Election Tribunal which was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II Section 3 dated 21st and 1953 (pages 477 to 491) showed that the Tribunal had held that he had inter alia made false statement and further that he did not act in an honest, straightforward and upright manner, the Justice ordered a notice to issue to him to Show cause why he should not be dismissed and debarred from practicing as a pleader. The for -M'l11954 Pepsu/11 and 12 I charge framed against Ch. Ram Singh is appendix A Of this order. After Ch. Ram Singh submitted his written reply the enquiry into the matter was entrusted to the Bench.
(2.) THE enquiry is under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act which lays down that High Court may after such enquiry as it thinks fit suspend or dismiss any pleader or mukhtar holding a certificate who is adjudged guilty of any of the acts enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of the Section or for any other reasonable cause under Clause (f) of the Section. The words of Clause (f) are very wide. It was once held by the Calcutta High Court that the clause must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses, but a different view was taken by the Madras High Court in - In the matter of A.G. Ganapathi Sastri and T. V. KrishnaswamiIyer, 19 MLR 504 (A) and since then almost all the High Courts in India have expressed the view that the words "for Anr. sufficient cause" are not limited to misconduct of a strictly professional character and that the operation of Clause (f) Section 13 is not confined to misconduct of which a practitioner may be found guilty in his professional capacity but embrace all cases which may afford reasonable grounds for a suspension or dismissal. Reference in this connection may be made among Ors. to - 'In the matter of Rasik Lal Nag', AIR 1917 Cal 428 (B) and - 'Crown v. Jatindra Mohan', AIR 1950 Dacca 3 (C). The same view was expressed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in - 'Shankar Ganesh v. Secy of State', AIR 1922 PC 351 (D). - 'In Re S. Pleader's conduct', AIR 1929 Lah 803 (2) (E), a lawyer was suspended for three months because he had made one statement before the police in the course of an investigation of an offence and made a diametrically opposite statement in the witness -box when the case went to Court. In fairness to the Respondent it may be mentioned that he did not raise any technical objection to these proceedings. His defence was that no action against him could be. taken on the basis of the order of the Election Tribunal and their findings because (a) they were vague and indefinite and (b) they were far -fetched and were not supported by any evidence on record.
(3.) VARIOUS allegations were made against the Respondent in the election petition, but in this enquiry we are concerned only with those that were the subject matter of issues Nos. 1 and 2, framed by the Commission. The issues are: 1. (a) Did Respondent 1 employ Khanya Ram for remuneration to do canvassing in support of his party and not in support of his personal candidature? Was this expenditure illegal under Section 123(7), Re -presentation of the People Act? (b) Does his employment" amount to a major corrupt practice under that section? 2. (a) Does Petitioner prove that Respondent 1 obtained or procured assistance of Ch. Mehtab Singh of Igra for furtherance of the prospects of his election? (b) Should Ch. Mehtab Singh, as a member of Debt Conciliation Board, be deemed to have been in service of the Pepsu Government? (c) Does the employment of Mehtab Singh of Igra as above, if proved, amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123(8), Representation of the People Act - As regards. issue No. 1 the allegation was that the Respondent had employed one Khanyat Ram as a paid servant on a remuneration of Rs. 400/ - for do propaganda and canvass support for his case Dature The Respondent's reply was that the allegation was false and frivolous, that Khanya Bam was never employed by him and that he was a singer and had ceased to work long before the polling began. The other side produced a voucher bearing number 11 which purported to be a receipt for Rs. 400/ - given by one Lehna' Singh Doon. The following wore the words of the voucher: Received Rs. 400/ - from Oh. Ram Singh B.A. LL. B. candidate for the Pepsu Legislative Assembly for carrying on election propaganda and paid to Ch. Kanhya Ram Lecturer of village Lajwanti Khurd Teh. Jind. as remuneration for the month of December, 1951. The position of the other side was that this voucher was in the handwriting of Ch. Ram Singh himself and definitely showed that he had paid the amount to Kanhya Ram to canvass sup -Port for him. They put a definite question to the Respondent on this point in the interrogatories. This is how question No. 4 reads: Is it true that you entered in your election expenses return that this payment of Rs. 400/ -'was made by you to "Ch. Kanihya Ram of Lal wana Khurd through Shri Lehna Singh Doon for the month of December, 51 as remunerate ion for carrying on election propaganda during your election campaign? The Respondent's answer was it was paid by Ch. Lehna Singh for the work. of the party i.e., "Kishan Party" and in turn I paid to him. It is payment of work done long before elections, though it was paid in December 1951. Lehna Singh when examined as a witness stated that the" scribe of the voucher was one Dhoop Singh. The latter was not put in the witness -box. The Respondent denied that the voucher was written by . him. The Tribunal held that the Respondent's statement was false and in coming to this conclusion they mainly relied upon the opinion of one K.S. Puri who claimed to be a handwriting expert. To contradict the opinion of K.S. Puri the Respondent examined one S.S. Pahwa who also claimed to be a handwriting ex -pert and deposed that the voucher in question was not in the Respondent's handwriting. The Tribunal held that Pahwa's opinion could not be accepted. They further held that Kanihya Ram's employment by the Respondent and the payment made to him amounted to a corrupt practice under Clause 7 of Section 123, Representation of the People Act.;