BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF TELANGANA:

HYDERABAD
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO.V
Dated this the Twenty Eighth day of April, 2023.
- - -
Present : Shri Zakeer Hussain Javid, Chairman
Shri Gnaneshwar, K, Member
Shri Kiran, Palakurthi, Member

***
Complaint Case No.17 of 2022
(S.R.No.76/2019)
Between:
1. Sri Hanamanthu,
S/o.Anjanaiah,
R/o.H.No.3/73, Vitapanakal,
Dist Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.
Ph:9290571950.

2. Sri Prakasham
S/o.Ramulu,
R/o.H.No.58-7-33/2,
Ramnagar, Kazipet, Dist Warangal.
Ph:9949286468. ….Complainants

Vs.
Smt.Anuradha Chakravarthi,
Advocate,
R/o.H.No.63-778/37/102,
ERD Complex, Durga Nagar Colony,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 016.
Ph:9948403555.
….Respondent.

The above case is referred to the Disciplinary Committee No.V

by the Bar Council of Telangana under section 35(1) of the

Advocates Act, 1961 (Act No.25/1961).

1
 This case is coming up for consideration before the Disciplinary

Committee No.V and after giving notice to the Advocate – General

under Section 35(2) of Advocates’ Act, 1961 and after considering

the available material, the Committee made the following:-

ORDER

1. The Complainant approached the Respondent on 01.05.2017

and handed over three cases pertaining to their service with

Railways they paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- in total to the

Respondent. The Respondent Advocate took all the original

documents pertaining to their service. She falsely represented

to them that she had filed the cases in Central Administrative

Tribunal and High Court. Whenever they enquired with the

Respondent Advocate with regard to the progress of their

cases, she had been postponed it and stating that the Railways

are not filing the Counter in that she did not give proper

response to their calls either she filed the case nor returned

their original documents.

2. The case was referred to the Committee vide S.R.No.76/2019.

At that stage also the Respondent Advocate did not submit her

comments. Cognizance has been taken by the Council and the

case is referred to this Disciplinary Committee and the case is

numbered as CC.No.17/2022.

2
3. On 18.08.2022, the Complainants are present. The

Respondent absent. Office was directed to issue fresh to the

Respondent through RPAD by adjourned the case to

16.09.2022. Subsequently, the case has been adjourned from

time to time as stated below:

19.09.2022 at 4.00 p.m.: Case called, Complainants

present. Respondent absent. Notice returned unserved with an
endorsement “Door Locked”. The Registry is directed to issue fresh
notice to the Respondent. Call on 21.10.2022 at 4.00 p.m.

21.10.2022 at 4.00 p.m.: Case called, Complainants

called present. Respondent absent. Despite notices sent to the
Registered Address of the Respondent available with the rolls of this
Counsel, the Notices were returned as “Party Left” Office also sent
notices through whatsapp on 11.10.2022 which was received by the
Respondent on the same day at 11.29 a.m. Hence, service held
sufficient. Respondent set-exparte. For the evidence of
Complainant call on 18.11.2022 at 4.00 p.m.

18.11.2022 at 4.00 p.m.: Case called, Complainants are

present. Respondent already said exparte on request of
Complainants case is adjourned to 09.12.2022 at 4.00 p.m. for their
evidence.

09.12.2022 at 4.00 p.m.: Case called, Complainant

present. Respondent absent. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of
Chief Examination for marking of documents if any. Cals on
30.12.2022 at 4.00 p.m.

30.12.2022 at 4.00 p.m: Case called, both parties present.

Filed Affidavits in lieu of Chief Examination. Evidence taken on

3
CW.1 & CW.2 No documentary evidence adduced. For further
evidence call on 06.01.2023 at 4.00 p.m.
06.01.2023 at 4.00 p.m.: Case called both
Complainants present along with their witnesses. Case is posted for
their recording of evidence on 27.01.2023 at 4.00 p.m.
27.01.2022 at 4.00 p.m: Case called, both the Complainants
present. Respondent absent. PW.3 is examined. Evidence of
Complainant closed. Heard the Complainants. For orders
10.02.2023 at 4.00 p.m.

4. On 21.10.2022, the Respondent was set-exparte and the

Complainants filed their evidence in lieu of their Chief

Examination. The Complainants examined CW.1 & CW.2.

However, no documentary evidence filed by them.

Heard the Complainants and perused the records.

The Committee framed the following issues:

1. Whether the Respondent is guilty of professional

misconduct as per section 35 of the Advocates Act,
1961 or any other misconduct?

2. To what relief?

5. The evidence of CW.1 & CW.2 is to the effect that they

entrusted three cases to the Respondent Advocate and also

original documents pertaining to their service cases but the

Respondent did not file those cases before the Central

Administrative Tribunal though she promises to filing cases

before the Central Administrative Tribunal and as well as High

4
 Court. She did not file those cases and did not return the

documents of the Complainants. She also failed to appear

before the Disciplinary Committee which shows that the

Respondent Advocate is not evincing any interest to defend

the cases against her though the notices were sent to the

registered address of the Respondent and also through whats

app.

6. Having considered the oral evidence of the Complainants who

are the retired employees of railways, who believed the false

representation of the Respondent Advocate who is not

supposed to do such acts. Therefore, this Committee is of the

view that the acts of the Respondent Advocate come within the

purview of professional mis-conduct under Section 35 of the

Advocates Act, 1961 and the committee is of the opinion that

the Respondent Advocate shall dealt with accordingly

Accordingly, this Committee found that the Respondent

Advocate guilty of professional mis-conduct and she is

suspended from the Rolls of the Bar Council for the State of

Telangana for a period of 1 year.

Accordingly, the Respondent is suspended from the

Rolls of the Bar Council for the State of Telangana for a
period of 1 year.

Sd/-Zakeer Hussain Javid, Chairman

Sd/- Gnaneshwar. K, Member
Sd/- Kiran Palakurthi, Member
5
 Appendix of Evidence

ORAL

For the Complainant : Sri Hanamanthu (CW.1)

Sri Prakasham (CW.2)
Sri Penubadi Kondaiah (CW.3)
For the Respondent : Nil.

DOCUMENTARY

For the Complainant : Nil.

For the Respondent : Nil.

(V.Naga Lakshmi)
Registrar, Disciplinary Committee

No.V.