Professional misconduct for filing unauthorized vakalatnamas and compromise deeds warrants proportionate discipline and three-year suspension.

An advocate who files vakalatnamas and compromise deeds without authority commits serious professional misconduct where the complainant's evidence is consistent and remains unrebutted. The disciplinary finding was restored because the oral and documentary material supported the complaint and the reversal lacked sufficient basis. Punishment must match the gravity of the misconduct and serve deterrence and correction; given the misuse of professional position and prior disciplinary history, suspension from practice for three years was held appropriate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding that the advocate had committed professional misconduct by filing vakalatnamas and compromise deeds without authority should be restored; (ii) What punishment was justified for such misconduct.

Issue (i): Whether the finding that the advocate had committed professional misconduct by filing vakalatnamas and compromise deeds without authority should be restored.

Analysis: The evidence of the complainant's witnesses was consistent that the impugned vakalatnamas and compromises were not executed by them, and there was no effective cross-examination or rebuttal evidence from the advocate. The earlier disciplinary finding was supported by oral and documentary material, while the appellate disciplinary body had reversed it without sufficient basis.

Conclusion: The finding of grave professional misconduct was restored in favour of the complainant and against the advocate.

Issue (ii): What punishment was justified for such misconduct.

Analysis: Punishment for professional misconduct must be commensurate with the gravity of the wrong and serve the twin objectives of deterrence and correction. The misconduct was serious, involved misuse of the advocate's professional position, and was aggravated by the respondent's previous disciplinary history.

Conclusion: The punishment of suspension from practice for three years was held to be appropriate.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary order was modified to restore the finding of serious professional misconduct and to impose a three-year suspension from practice.

Ratio Decidendi: An advocate found guilty on reliable evidence of filing vakalatnamas or compromise deeds without authority commits serious professional misconduct warranting punishment proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, with deterrence and correction as the governing considerations.

---