Jharkhand High Court quashes disciplinary action against lawyer accused of having illicit relationship with client

The Jharkhand High Court recently quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State Bar Council against a lawyer who allegedly was in an "illicit" physical relationship with his client [Vikash Kumar Dubey v. The Jharkhand State Bar Council]..Justice Ananda Sen concluded that the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions to wreak vengeance on a professional lawyer who was defending the complainant’s wife in a matrimonial case. The Court also ruled that the complainant had no locus standi to lodge the complaint since he had no professional relationship with the lawyer, Vikas Kumar Dubey (petitioner).“This sort of behaviour of respondent No. 3 [complainant] is absolutely deprecated,” the Court remarked..While challenging the disciplinary enquiry against him, Dubey had told the Court that he was representing the complainant’s wife in a matrimonial dispute. The complainant (client's estranged husband) had lodged the complaint only to prevent the lawyer from defending his wife, he added.However, counsel representing the complainant argued that there was serious misconduct on the part of Dubey and that he should appear before the Disciplinary Committee. .Counsel representing the State Bar Council prayed for some time to respond. However, the Court rejected the request.“The role of the Bar Council is limited. They should act as a neutral body and they cannot take side of any of the parties. Thus, they need not be heard on the merit of the case. The Bar council can only make submission if their jurisdiction is challenged,” it observed. .Dealing with the case on merits, the Court noted that both the complainant and the petitioner were adults.It also noted that the allegation of there being a physical relationship was levelled by the husband, who was not on good terms with his wife.“Surprisingly, the wife has not filed any complaint. If there was any sexual act or any misconduct committed by the petitioner-Advocate upon [her], [she] would have been the only person who could have lodged a complaint. In this case, it is the husband, who is adversary of [wife] has lodged the complaint,” the Court said..It further noted that a summoning order in the criminal case filed against the petitioner by the complainant has already been quashed by the High Court.Considering the overall facts, the Court found the complaint to be an act of vengeance against the lawyer and allowed his plea to quash the complaint.“Consequently, Notice Ref. No. 1688 of 2023 dated 26.8.2023 in D.C. Enquiry No. 3/2023 is quashed. The complaint dated 5.9.2022, filed by respondent No. 3 along with entire proceeding started by the Disciplinary Committee, Jharkhand State Bar Council against the petitioner is also quashed,” the order reads..Advocates Sheo Kr Singh and RN Chatterjee represented the petitioner.Advocate Neha Bhardwaj represented the Bar Council. State Bar Council Chairman R Krishna was also present.Advocate Rajesh Kumar represented the complainant..[Read Judgment]