JUDGMENT A.P. Srivastava, J. - This is a petition u|Art. 226 of the Constitution which arises in the following circumstances. 2. The Petitioner was practising as a Mukhtar and Revenue Agent at Fatehgarh in the district of Farrukhabad. 11 persons who were represented to be Raghunath, Swaroop, Chunni, Baldeo, Bhupal, Malkhan, Narain, Gauri, Raghu, Charna and Ram Nath were brought to him by two persons, Salar Khan and Nathu Khan, who were known to him. They executed a Muhktarnama in his favour. The vakalatnama was attested by Salar Khan and Nathu Khan who, it is said, identified them to be persons they purported to be. Armed with that vakalatnama the Petitioner as a Mukhtar applied for the withdrawal of some compensation money that was payable to the 11 persons. After receiving the money he paid it to the persons concerned after obtaining formal receipts from them. At the time of the payment of the amount also the persons concerned were identified by Salar Khan and Nathu Khan. It subsequently transpired that the 11 persons were not really the persons they claimed to be and had personated the real persons bearing those names with the help of Salar Khan and Nathu Khan. Salar Khan was in that connection prosecuted also for cheating. When the real persons appeared and claimed the money the Petitioner paid the amount to them again, this time from his own pocket. A report about this incident having been made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Fatehgarh, he under the directions of the Collector of the District served a charge sheet on the Petitioner in which he was charged with having been guilty of professional misconduct. A report about this incident having been made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Fatehgarh, he under the directions of the Collector of the District served a charge sheet on the Petitioner in which he was charged with having been guilty of professional misconduct. The charge had three counts;-(1) that Sri Lalta Prasad had presented the Mukhtarnama on behalf of Raghunath, Sarupa, Chunni, Baldeo, Bhoopal, Malkhan, Narain, Gauri, Raghu, Bhajanlal and Chunna although he had no proper authority for the same and thus he obtained payments of compensation money in an unauthorised manner which was a grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties, (2) that Sri Lalta Prasad did not take proper steps to get the executants of Mukhtarnamas properly identified and thus he permitted the execution of false Mukhtarnamas signed by some persons who falsely impersonated and signed on behalf of Raghunath and others and thus he committed a grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty, and (3) that Sri Lalta Prasad had been keeping the said compensation money in his custody for an unduly long period and without proper authority, which was also a grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. 3. In answer to the charges the Petitioner submitted his explanation in which he denied having committed professional misconduct and pleaded that he had acted bona fide throughout but had been misled by Salar Khan and Nathu Khan. He also said that having learn about the mistake he had paid the money to the persons who were really entitled to the same. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct and recommended that necessary steps as laid down in S. 23 of the Legal Practitioner's Act be taken & recommendation be made to the Board of Revenue, UP, Lucknow for dismissing the petitioner for professional misconduct. This recommendation was made to the Collector who with his own endorsement thereon sent it to the Commissioner. The Commissioner agreed with the recommendations of the Collector and sent it on to the Board of Revenue. The Board by its order dated 18-3-60 held that the Petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct and was further of the opinion that it was a fit case in which the extreme penalty u/s 40 of the Legal Practitioner's Act should be imposed on him. The Board by its order dated 18-3-60 held that the Petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct and was further of the opinion that it was a fit case in which the extreme penalty u/s 40 of the Legal Practitioner's Act should be imposed on him. It, therefore, dismissed him as a Revenue Agent and debarred him from practising in that capacity. A copy of the order was in due course forwarded to this Court and acting u/s 39 of the Legal Practitioner's Act a Bench of this Court declared that the Petitioner was to be deemed to be debarred as a Mukhtar also. The Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue has filed this petition & seeks the quashing of its decision by a writ of certiorari on the ground that the view it took about the acts of the Petitioner amounting to professional misconduct was an apparent error in law. After the petition had been filed the Joint Registrar of this Court, who had informed the Petitioner about the order of this Court passed u/s 39 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, was added as a party and an additional prayer was made for a writ of certiorari or a writ or direction for quashing the administrative order No. 17737 dated 3-12-60 and the order dated 9-12-60, or to grant such other and further order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to make.' 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board of Revenue in answer to the petition. 5. When the petition was taken up for hearing today, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that he was not pressing the additional prayer that had been made as a consequence of the impleading of the Joint Registrar of this Court and that in case the petition is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue is quashed he will take other steps for getting the consequential order of this Court u/s 39 of the Legal Practitioner's Act set aside. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider that prayer. 6. So far as the order of the Board of Revenue is concerned the question that arises for our consideration is whether the view taken by the Board about the conduct of the Petitioner being professionally improper was vitiated by an apparent error of law. 7. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider that prayer. 6. So far as the order of the Board of Revenue is concerned the question that arises for our consideration is whether the view taken by the Board about the conduct of the Petitioner being professionally improper was vitiated by an apparent error of law. 7. From the facts which have already been narrated and which are not in dispute it is clear to us that the Petitioner has been acting in good faith throughout. Salar Khan and Nathu Khan were known to him. If they brought certain persons who claimed to be Raghunath and others to whom some compensation was due and were identified, as being the persons, who they purported to be, by Salar Khan and Nathu Khan and the Petitioner was satisfied that they were the persons who they claimed to be, it was but natural for the Petitioner to treat them as his clients and to obtain a Mukhtarnama in his favour signed by them and to apply on their behalf for the refund of the amount. He took the additional precaution of getting the Mukhtarnama attested by the two persons. In the circumstances of the case no one could have expected him to do anything else. He could not at that stage have even the shadow of a suspicion that he was being made the victim of fraud or that Salar Khan and Nathu Khan on whom he was relying were really deceiving him. The money was returned by him in due course and he naturally paid it to the persons whom he believed were his clients. He took the precaution of obtaining the formal receipts from them and those receipts were duly attested. When, however, it was discovered that the persons, who had engaged him had really impersonated other persons, who were really entitled to the money and the Petitioner was satisfied in that respect, he paid the amount over again from his own pocket to those real claimants. This furnishes additional evidence of his good faith. In the circumstances we find it difficult to appreciate the reasons which led the Board of Revenue to consider the conduct of the Petitioner as amounting to professional misconduct. This furnishes additional evidence of his good faith. In the circumstances we find it difficult to appreciate the reasons which led the Board of Revenue to consider the conduct of the Petitioner as amounting to professional misconduct. The Board was of the opinion that the Petitioner had acted in a careless manner and have taken into consideration against him the fact that Salar Ahmad Khan and Nathu Khan had subsequently been prosecuted u/s 420, IPC. They however, did not indicate what additional care the Petitioner could have taken. In the circumstances, at the time when he agreed to act for the 11 persons who engaged him as a Mukhtar, he had no basis for suspecting Salar Khan. There is nothing to show that he had been prosecuted u/s 420 before that date. The prosecution was probably launched against him subsequently when this present fraud was discovered. Really, therefore, nothing, which the petitioner did, could be considered to be improper and it is, therefore, not possible to accept the view of the Board of Revenue that he was guilty of professional misconduct and deserved on that account the punishment of dismissal from the roll of the Revenue Agents. The view taken by the Board thus appears to us to be apparently erroneous in law and the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. 8. The petition, therefore, succeeds. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 18-3-1960 is quashed by a writ of certiorari. The Petitioner will get his costs from the first and the second Respondents. There will be no orders as to costs about third respondent.