1. On 20th March 1943, this Court acting under Section 10 (2), Bar Councils Act, directed the District Judge of West Godavari to hold an inquiry into a complaint made against the respondent, who is an advocate practising at Ellore. Rule 1 of the rules relating to the procedure to be followed by tribunals and District Courts in cases referred to them for inquiry under the Act, states that upon receipt of a case referred for inquiry under Section 10 (2), the tribunal or District Court shall forthwith frame a charge or charges on the basis of the complaint, fix a date, hour and place for the inquiry and give notice thereof to the complainant and to the advocate whose conduct is the subject of inquiry, at least 21 days before the date of inquiry and may call upon the complainant to file a list of witnesses and documents relied upon by him. In exceptional cases, the tribunal or Court may, in its discretion, postpone the framing of charge or charges until after the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses for the complainant. Rule 2 requires the charge or charges to be read to the respondent. Therefore it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal or Court to frame a formal charge.
2. In this case the District Judge did not frame a charge. The complaint was one of misappropriation of client's money. The District Judge has presented a report which is in one respect adverse to the respondent. The failure on the part of the District Judge to frame a charge has vitiated the whole of the proceedings. It is a very regrettable omission on his part. The result is the waste of time and money. In the circumstances the only course open to the Court is to direct that a further inquiry shall be held after a charge has been framed. The fresh inquiry must be held by another District Judge and we direct the District Judge of East Godavari to hold it after taking all the steps required by the rules.