Reasonable apprehension of bias, waiver and concurrent misconduct findings upheld in disciplinary proceedings.

A disciplinary tribunal is vitiated where a member's prior appearance for a complainant gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, but that objection may be lost through knowing waiver or acquiescence. On the facts, the chairman was disqualified in principle, yet the appellant had knowledge of the relevant facts and allowed the tribunal to proceed without timely objection, so the challenge could not succeed. The Court also declined interference with concurrent findings of professional misconduct, including assistance in procuring a false stay order, and upheld removal from practice because no legal or procedural error justified reversal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tribunal was invalidly constituted because its chairman had previously appeared for the complainant in related proceedings. (ii) Whether the appellant had waived the objection to the chairman's presence by not raising it at the earlier stage. (iii) Whether the finding of professional misconduct and the order of removal from practice called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the tribunal was invalidly constituted because its chairman had previously appeared for the complainant in related proceedings.

Analysis: A member of a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal must be free from circumstances giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The governing principle is not whether actual prejudice is proved, but whether a litigant could reasonably suspect that the decision-making process was affected. That principle applies equally to disciplinary tribunals entrusted with determining allegations of professional misconduct.

Conclusion: The chairman was disqualified, and the tribunal suffered from a serious infirmity in constitution.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had waived the objection to the chairman's presence by not raising it at the earlier stage.

Analysis: Waiver or acquiescence requires knowledge of the relevant facts and awareness of the right to object. On the record, the appellant knew the material facts, knew that the chairman had earlier appeared in the related proceedings, and nevertheless allowed the tribunal to proceed without objection. The later challenge was therefore an afterthought and could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The objection was waived and could not invalidate the proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the finding of professional misconduct and the order of removal from practice called for interference.

Analysis: The tribunal and the High Court had returned concurrent findings that the appellant actively assisted in procuring a false stay order. The Court found no procedural irregularity warranting interference under Article 136 and no basis to discard the concurrent factual conclusions. Given the gravity of the misconduct and the need to maintain professional integrity, the sanction of removal from practice was held to be justified.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the finding of misconduct or the penalty imposed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the disciplinary action against the appellant stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary tribunal is vitiated where a member gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, but the objection is lost if the affected party knowingly acquiesces; concurrent findings of misconduct will not be disturbed absent legal or procedural error.

---