JUDGMENT : RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, J. Heard the appellant and learned counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council. The other respondents have either not entered appearance or have chosen not to argue in the matter. 2. The petitioner-appellant in the present appeal has challenged the impugned order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10226 of 2009 by which the writ application has been dismissed on the ground that it cannot be maintained at this stage agreeing with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the writ application is premature and the petitioner-appellant has all the liberty to raise every objection including the initiation of the proceeding against him before the Bar Council of India. 3. The petitioner-appellant had filed the writ application for quashing the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him by the resolution of the Special Committee of the Bihar State Bar Council dated 14.01.2009 at item No. 16 and further sought to challenge the resolution dated 22.05.2009 of the Special Committee by which it was decided to send the original record of the D.C. Enquiry No.4/2009 to the Bar Council of India and for restraining the Bar Council of India from proceeding with the same and for quashing a notice dated 11.08.2009 issued by the Bar Council of India and consequential reliefs. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, including the filing of a writ petition by the writ petitioner with regard to the elections to the Bihar State Bar Council and the nomination of Respondent No. 5 as a Member of the Special Committee, the crux of the matter relates to two letters dated 26.11.2008 and 01.12.2008 which the petitioner appellant addressed to the Advocate General, Bihar – cum - Chairman, Special Committee, Bihar State Bar Council. The subject matter of the first letter was for the Special Committee “to take an action against one of the members of the S.C. of B.S.B.C.” and in the second letter the subject matter was “Regarding uprooting corruption and for holding election” with respect to earlier representation dated 26/27 November, 2008. The subject matter of the first letter was for the Special Committee “to take an action against one of the members of the S.C. of B.S.B.C.” and in the second letter the subject matter was “Regarding uprooting corruption and for holding election” with respect to earlier representation dated 26/27 November, 2008. In the first letter dated 26.11.2008 the petitioner-appellant referred to the shocking conduct of respondent No. 5 in not getting the different orders of this Court published in the Bihar Bar Council Journal which orders are alleged to have been against the working of outgoing members of the Bar Council and had been approved for reporting by this Court and the reporting of a few of such judgments after a long delay of more than a year and another case after 3-4 years which, according to him, proved without any reasonable doubt that the respondent No. 5 was misusing the chair and power causing loss to society and engaged for wrongful gain for him. Another allegation made was that the notification issued by the Bar Council of India in September 2008 was not being made available to him at the behest of the said member. It was further stated that thereafter so many misdeeds and colourable exercise of power and high-handedness of the said member is available in record of the office which required inquiry, as the matter relates to finance and suitable action was requested to be taken against the Secretary, Managing Editor, Editor and the said member who was illegally occupying the office even after order passed by this Court on 10.7.2008 directing the Bar Council of India to remove him. Further allegations were made regarding the election being delayed due to in-competency of the said member and officials of the Council. Motive alleged behind it is to enjoy the post without facing election, as no further extension of Special Committee is to be granted. The petitioner-appellant also expressed his readiness to assist in the matter and whenever new materials will come to his knowledge he would bring the same to the notice of the Chairman. 5. In the letter dated 01.12.2008 allegations were made that an amount of Rs. The petitioner-appellant also expressed his readiness to assist in the matter and whenever new materials will come to his knowledge he would bring the same to the notice of the Chairman. 5. In the letter dated 01.12.2008 allegations were made that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was allotted to the Secretary of Birpur Sub Divisional Bar Association but respondent No. 5 pressurized the Secretary of Bihar State Bar Council by misusing his power to hand over cheque of the said amount to his relation, namely, Raj Kishore Jha, who was not Secretary of any Association and the said amount was encashed and divided between them. It was further stated that the Secretary of the Bar Association, Birpur had lodged a complaint that till date no cheque/no amount of said relief fund has been given to him. 6. Another allegation made in the said letter was that the respondent No. 5 was misusing the fund by receiving fare of aeroplane to attend Seminar at Ranchi organized by Jharkhand Bar Council whereas the rules permit only second class A.C. fare and till date no member has been given fare of airbus. 7. Another statement made was that the quotation for purchasing new car for the members of Special Committee had been invited, which would be misuse of fund. It was suggested that a bus may be purchased for general lawyer which will help them in reaching Court in time and also to save money of the poor and junior lawyers. Allegation was also made regarding misuse of money in the name of repairing of the Bar Council Building which has been recently repaired two years back. Allegation was also made regarding the non-completion of process of election which was prime duty of the Special Committee and procedure discussed in Bar Council of India Vs. Om Prakash Faizi :A.I.R. 1998 (S.C.) 3054 decision of the Supreme Court was requested to be followed in the interest of justice and for saving the Council from the loot being done by the members. Lastly, it was requested that the office be directed to act accordingly and complete the election before the end of the term of the Special Committee. 8. Lastly, it was requested that the office be directed to act accordingly and complete the election before the end of the term of the Special Committee. 8. In the meeting of the Special Committee held on 14.1.2009 under Agenda No. 16 which was admittedly attended by all the three members of the Special Committee including the respondent No. 5 it was resolved as follows: “Item No. 16/14.1.2009: Under the heading “Any other matter” the Council has examined the complaint dated 26.11.2008, 30.11.2008 and 1.12.2008 made by Shri Praveen Kumar, learned advocate, Patna High Court. The Committee is anguished to note that the contents of the complaint are purports to level mischievous, baseless, frivolous and concocted allegations against Hon’ble Members of the Bar Council. Not only that wild and baseless allegation has been made against Hon’ble Members of the Special Committee, but also amounts to committing defamation because personal allegation without any basis has been made against Hon’ble Members of the Special Committee. The Committee has been conducting the business of the Bihar State Bar Council with utmost transparency and in most appropriate manner in accordance with law. Nobody has a right to make such wild, baseless, frivolous allegation defaming either the individual members or the Committee as a whole. This tendency must be dealt with in sternest possible manner. The Committee is of unanimous view that Shri Praveen Kumar being learned member of the profession is expected to be responsible and consistent with the professional ethics. He is not supposed to make such frivolous and baseless allegation. The Committee having taken serious view of the complaint containing baseless, mischievous, concocted and wild allegation is of the view that the learned Advocate calls for an appropriate disciplinary proceeding and, therefore, it takes cognizance and decides to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for taking suitable action against learned Advocate Praveen Kumar of Patna High Court.” 9. The Disciplinary Committee took up the matter of the petitioner-appellant on several dates. The Disciplinary Committee initiated D.C. Enquiry No. 4/2009 against the appellant and notices were issued against all the concerned parties. On 6.3.2009 the appellant appeared before the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee took up the matter of the petitioner-appellant on several dates. The Disciplinary Committee initiated D.C. Enquiry No. 4/2009 against the appellant and notices were issued against all the concerned parties. On 6.3.2009 the appellant appeared before the Disciplinary Committee. Again on 20.3.2009 the appellant appeared and by filing application sought eleven information’s relating to different matters, which application was disposed of by the Disciplinary Committee and the documents sought for were not supplied; it adjourned the matter to 08.05.2009 for filing show cause by the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner-appellant did not appear before the Committee on 08.05.2009 nor any show cause was filed on his behalf. The Disciplinary Committee in its meetings dated 20.3.2009 and 08.05.2009 passed the following orders, which were signed by two of the three members of the Disciplinary Committee, namely, Mr. Gorang Chaterjee and the respondent no. 5 Mr. P.K.Jha : “20.03.2009 The complainant and the respondent both are present and have filed their respective Hazri. The Respondent has filed an application demanding copies of certain documents. The perusal of the record reveal that such documents are not available on record, hence this committee is unable to supply the copies of them. It is needless to say in the writ the complainant wants to rely on any of the document mentioned in the application of the respondent then the same would be permissible only after copy of such document is supplied and opportunity is given to the respondent to give reply in reference to such document. This Committee feels that it is not proper for this committee to hear this case because the allegations have been leveled against Two members of this Committee for which cognizance appears to have been taken. The committee would give its opinion with regard to the hearing of this case by this Committee on the next date. The case is adjourned to 08/05/09 for filing of show cause by respondent and for the decision of the Committee regarding hearing of this case by this Committee. “08.05.2009 The Secretary of the Committee is present. The Respondent is not present. No show cause has yet been filed. In this case the Respondent has levelled allegations against two of the members Sri Prem Kumar Jha and Sri Umeshwar Prasad Singh of this Committee hence it is not proper for them to hear this case. “08.05.2009 The Secretary of the Committee is present. The Respondent is not present. No show cause has yet been filed. In this case the Respondent has levelled allegations against two of the members Sri Prem Kumar Jha and Sri Umeshwar Prasad Singh of this Committee hence it is not proper for them to hear this case. Since under the rules one member cannot decide the issue therefore the Committee has decided to give its report to the State Bar Council to enable the committee to forward the matter to B.C.I. New Delhi for conducting enquiry of the instant proceeding and disposal of the same. The Committee shall file its report on separate sheet on 11.05.2009.” 10. It is the stand of the petitioner-appellant that although the Disciplinary Committee mentioned in the said order regarding the allegation levelled against the two of the three members of the Committee including Sri Umeshwar Prasad Singh but the same, according to him, was not the correct fact as no allegation had been levelled by the appellant against Sri Umeshwar Prasad Singh. 11. When the matter went back to the Special Committee, by the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 with reference to supplementary agenda item no. 1 it decided to send the entire records of the proceeding to the Bar Council of India. For better appreciation the item no. 1/22.5.2009 (Supp.) is quoted herein under: “Item no. 1/22/5/2009(Supp.) Took up item no. 1 of the supplementary agenda. The Council has perused the report submitted by the Disciplinary Committee. It transpires that Shri Praveen Kumar, learned Advocate, Patna High Court has made scandalous allegations against the members of the Special Committee and also against the Chairman of Bar Council of India. The allegations were noticed to the totally frivolous, baseless and mischievous and it was considered that the same has been done with deliberate intent to malign the Chairman, Bar Council of India and members of Special committee of Bihar State Bar Council. The Council having regard to its mandate to maintain the discipline and professional conduct of an advocate, thought it proper to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of Bihar State Bar Council. From the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee it appears that the Committee noticed Shri Praveen Kumar. It further appears that Shri Praveen Kumar later on did not appear before the Disciplinary Committee. From the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee it appears that the Committee noticed Shri Praveen Kumar. It further appears that Shri Praveen Kumar later on did not appear before the Disciplinary Committee. As the scandalous allegation made by Shri Praveen Kumar is against the members of Special Committee of Bihar State Bar Council the Disciplinary Committee has considered it appropriate to transmit the disciplinary proceeding for consideration by the Bar Council of India, through the Bihar State Bar Council. The Council, in view of the report of Disciplinary Committee, resolves to send entire record of the Disciplinary proceeding to the Bar Council of India for appropriate decision. The office is directed to send entire record to the Bar Council of India forthwith.” 12. Thereafter, vide notice dated 11.8.2009 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, directed the petitioner-appellant to appear before it on 23rd August, 2009. Aggrieved by the same the appellant approached this Court by filing the writ application, upon dismissal of which, as stated above, the present appeal has been filed. This Court while issuing notice in the appeal on 1.9.2009 stayed the further proceedings in the disciplinary matter against the appellant before the Bar Council of India during the pendency of the appeal. 13. The petitioner-appellant submits that the allegation as evident from the two letters written by him, was only against the respondent No. 5 Mr. P.K.Jha, one of the members of the Special Committee, as also member of the Disciplinary Committee, and not against the two other members of the Committee. It is submitted by him that from perusal of the two letters dated 26.11.2008 and 01.12.2009 it is evident that the three allegations made by the appellant are on the basis of factual foundations laid by him and they could not be said to be baseless, frivolous, concocted and mischievous allegations. It is urged that so far the allegation regarding non-publication of adverse report in the Bihar Bar Council Journal or publishing the same after a great delay is concerned, the same was totally factual. The other allegation regarding the non-supply of the notification of September 2008 issued by the B.C.I. was equally a factual statement. It is urged that so far the allegation regarding non-publication of adverse report in the Bihar Bar Council Journal or publishing the same after a great delay is concerned, the same was totally factual. The other allegation regarding the non-supply of the notification of September 2008 issued by the B.C.I. was equally a factual statement. This allegation regarding the conduct of the member, according to the appellant, could not be said to be contrary to fact as the Special Committee appointed originally on 3rd of March 2008 was ultimately able to complete the election after nearly two years of its appointment. 14. It is further asserted that the letters were written with all sense of responsibility as the appellant showed his readiness to assist the Chairman of the Special Committee in the matter as whenever further materials would come to his knowledge. 15. With regard to the letter dated 1.12.2008, the petitioner – appellant submits that the allegation regarding misappropriation of Rs. 50,000/- had been made against one Rajkishore Jha and the said amount having been encashed by him claiming to be the Secretary of the Bar Association, which allegation was not baseless as the Bihar State Bar Council itself by its agenda item no. 4 at its meeting held on 29.01.2009 has acted upon the same and decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the said Rajkishore Jha holding that he had obtained the amount by impersonating himself as the Secretary of Bar Association, Birpur (Supaul), whereas the elected Secretary of the Bar Association, Birpur (Supaul) is Shri Lakshmi Narain Ran and, thus, he committed a serious case of professional misconduct. It is urged by the petitioner-appellant that if the Bar Council had got investigated the matter further then role of respondent No. 5 would have been found and it would have initiated proceeding against him also with respect to the factual matter which on investigation was found to be true against the aforesaid Raj Kishore Jha. 16. The appellant further submits that no particulars are to be found in the order taking cognizance as to which part of the complaints filed by the appellant was baseless or mischievous or wild and, therefore, it shows prima facie bad intention and malice in law and fact on the part of those who have taken the decision. 16. The appellant further submits that no particulars are to be found in the order taking cognizance as to which part of the complaints filed by the appellant was baseless or mischievous or wild and, therefore, it shows prima facie bad intention and malice in law and fact on the part of those who have taken the decision. It is, thus, submitted that there was no fairness either on the part of the Special Committee or the Disciplinary Committee since the disciplinary proceeding itself had been initiated in retaliation and revenge. To bolster the same, the appellant further submits that it appears from the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee during the course of proceeding that it was showing better knowledge than the Special Committee which had taken cognizance as it has further elaborated the matter stating facts which were not there before the Special Committee. 17. It is the submission of the appellant that there has been no application of mind on the part of the Special Committee while taking the cognizance. It is urged that the cognizance has been taken not only on the basis of the representations dated 26.11.2008 and 01.12.2008 filed by the appellant but also another letter dated 30.11.2008 which had not been filed by the appellant but by the Adhivakta Sevak Sangh through its office bearer. It is also submitted that most of the matters referred in the order taking cognizance relate to the allegations made in the said complaint dated 30.11.2008 and not that by the appellant in his two complaints. It is pointed out that the allegation made by the appellant was only against one of the members of the Special Committee, namely, the respondent no. 5, Mr. P.K.Jha and not the other two members of the Special Committee whereas the order taking cognizance speaks of allegation made against all the members of the Special Committee which is factually not correct. 18. In this regard it is submitted by the appellant that under Section 35 of the Advocates Act before referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee, the State Bar Council must have “reason to believe” that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct. It is submitted that the phrase “reason to believe” is stronger than the phrase “if satisfied” as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. It is submitted that the phrase “reason to believe” is stronger than the phrase “if satisfied” as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Pratap Singh and another Versus Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and others: (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 72, in the relevant part of para 10 of which it has been held as follows: “The expression “reason to believe” is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the Officer. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot merely be a pretence. In the same case, it was held that it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent the action of the Income Tax Officer in starting proceeding under section 34 is open to challenge in a court of law.” 19. The appellant further assails the return of the disciplinary proceeding by the Disciplinary Committee to the State Bar Council stating that there is no provision either in the Act or the Rules to return the disciplinary proceeding to the State Bar Council and under the relevant provision only the State Bar Council has power to withdraw or transfer the disciplinary proceeding. 20. It is also the contention of the appellant that the State Bar Council has no power to transfer the proceeding to the Bar Council of India either under Section 35 or 36 of the Advocates Act and such power of transfer or withdrawal of inquiry itself has been vested under Section 36(2) only upon the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and there can be no transfer of the case by the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India. 21. The appellant further submits that the allegations having been made against the respondent No. 5 who was one of the members of the Special Committee, it was not open to the Special Committee to have taken cognizance in the matter while respondent no. 5 also sitting in the Special Committee was party to the decision. 21. The appellant further submits that the allegations having been made against the respondent No. 5 who was one of the members of the Special Committee, it was not open to the Special Committee to have taken cognizance in the matter while respondent no. 5 also sitting in the Special Committee was party to the decision. In this regard the appellant refers to the provisions of Rule 5(ii) of Chapter 9 of the Bihar Bar Council Rules, 1962 wherein it is provided that two members shall form a quorum for a meeting of committee consisting of less than five members. It is urged that the Special Committee being composed of three members, the other two members were competent under statutory rules to have constituted the quorum for the meeting of the Special Committee and taken decision in the matter and the presence of respondent no. 5 in the said meeting of the Special Committee, while taking cognizance against the appellant, vitiates the decision making process and the decision itself. 22. It is also the contention of the appellant that even if the allegations as made in the order dated 14.1.2009 taking cognizance are taken into consideration, no case of professional misconduct is made out and for the said reason also the same should be quashed and the appellant should not be forced to face an uncalled for disciplinary proceeding. 23. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council, on the other hand, has sought to support the order impugned as also the action of the respondent stating that the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has rightly been considered to be premature as the petitioner-appellant has all the remedies available before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and the plea that has been raised in the writ petition could have been easily raised by the appellant before the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India. It is submitted that even if there are any charges of bias or revenge and retaliation that has only been levelled against the member of the Special Committee or the Disciplinary Committee of the Bihar State Bar Council and, thus, the appellant has no reason to expect the same from the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and he ought to be directed to be present himself before the Bar Council of India and file his show cause/written statement of defence to the notice issued instead of challenging the same in the writ proceeding. 24. Learned counsel, however, is unable to show that when there was a specific requirement of quorum of two members only under Rule 5(ii) of Chapter 9 of the Bihar Bar Council Rules than why the third member of the Special Committee, namely, respondent No. 5 against whom the allegations were made in the two complaints dated 26.11.2008 and 1.12.2008 of the appellant had been permitted to participate in the meeting of the Special Committee while taking decision in the matter of initiating disciplinary proceeding against the appellant on the basis of the said two letters. 25. Learned counsel is further unable to show how such action of the Special Committee would not be hit by the principle of rule against bias, which is part of the principles of natural justice. 26. We have considered the submissions of the appellant and learned counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council. The primary issue according to us is as to whether when the Special Committee was considering item no. 16 with regard to complaints dated 26.11.2008 and 01.12.2008 of the appellant on 14.1.2009, the respondent No. 5 ought to have been excluded from the deliberation of the Committee considering the fact that the two complaints were initially against the respondent No. 5. It is one of the cardinal principles of natural justice that any decision making authority must act without bias. Admittedly the quorum requirement under Rule 5(ii) of Chapter 9 of 1962 Rules was only of two members. Thus, even excluding the respondent No. 5, the Special Committee could have validly taken a decision. Thus, it cannot even be argued that on account of the doctrine of necessity the Special Committee had to include the respondent No. 5 while taking a decision with regard to certain complaints which were essentially directed against him. Thus, even excluding the respondent No. 5, the Special Committee could have validly taken a decision. Thus, it cannot even be argued that on account of the doctrine of necessity the Special Committee had to include the respondent No. 5 while taking a decision with regard to certain complaints which were essentially directed against him. In our view the respondent No. 5 ought not to have participated in the said deliberation and it was incumbent upon the other members of the Special Committee to have excluded him from such deliberation with regard to the complaint dated 26.11.2008 and 01.12.2008 made by the appellant which have been in fact used against the appellant himself for initiating disciplinary proceeding against him. The presence of the respondent no. 5 in such deliberations not only vitiates the decision making process but lends credence to the charge of the appellant that the disciplinary proceeding against him had been initiated in retaliation and revenge and there was no fairness on the part of the Special Committee while referring the case to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. 27. Moreover, we find sufficient force in the contention of the appellant that there has been lack of proper application of mind by the Special Committee in examining the matter against the appellant while taking the decision to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for taking suitable action. It is evident from the materials before us that only two complaints were made by the appellant, namely, those dated 26.11.2008 and 01.12.2008. The complaint dated 30.11.2008 was made by Adhivakta Sevak Sangh which is an altogether separate entity, which fact was even not considered by the Special Committee and the said complaint has also been clubbed together with the two complaints of the appellant to arrive at the decision as has been done. Lack of application of mind is also apparent from the fact that the complaints made by the appellant are essentially against the respondent No. 5 whereas the order taking cognizance speaks of allegations made against the members of the Special Committee and not only against the respondent No. 5. 28. Lack of application of mind is also apparent from the fact that the complaints made by the appellant are essentially against the respondent No. 5 whereas the order taking cognizance speaks of allegations made against the members of the Special Committee and not only against the respondent No. 5. 28. We are also of the view that the allegations made in the complaint cannot be considered to be totally mischievous, baseless, frivolous and concocted since the Bar Council itself has acted upon one of the allegations and found that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- given to one Raj Kishore Jha, claiming to be the Secretary of the Bar Association, Birpur, Supaul was wrongly given and on the basis of what appears to be the complaint of the appellant himself and after making an inquiry, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated by the State Bar Council on 29.9.2009 against the said Raj Kishore Jha. The complaint which leads to discovery of such important fact cannot be easily called mischievous, frivolous, baseless and concocted. It is not the case of the respondent State Bar Council that it had got the matter investigated and it was found that the respondent No. 5 had no role to play in the matter. In any case in view of he facts found the statement made in the said complaints on this ground cannot be said to be concocted and baseless. 29. We also find that the other allegations made in the complaint are also based upon certain facts although the conclusions drawn from those facts may not be the same by different persons; but the fact that the allegations themselves have been based upon specific facts alleged in the said complaint, it cannot be said that the same are baseless and concocted. 30. We further find that the allegations against the respondent No. 5 regarding misuse of drawing the fund by receiving fare of aeroplane where the rules permit only second class A.C. fare cannot be also said to be concocted as nothing has been argued on behalf of the Bihar State Bar Council that the rules permit such fare. Rather it is the appellant who has referred to the report of a two members committee which has found that the rules permit second class A.C. fare. Rather it is the appellant who has referred to the report of a two members committee which has found that the rules permit second class A.C. fare. Without going into the veracity of such matter we can only observe that any such allegation cannot straightaway be considered baseless and concocted and used for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceeding against the person who is the complainant. 31. The appellant has also argued that under Article 19 of the Constitution of India that he has right to freedom of speech and expression and complaints dated 26.11.2008 and 1.12.2008 are merely expression of his right and he has not crossed the boundary to suffer from disciplinary proceeding for professional misconduct. We are also of the view that any member of the Bar has a right to make complaint against any perceived misfeasance or misconduct by the members of the Bar Council so long as the said allegations are made with a sense of responsibility and are not baseless and concocted. Moreover a distinction has to be made between allegations made against wrong actions of individual persons and allegations which have the tendency of showing the statutory institution like Bar Council itself in bad light so as to lower down its prestige in the eye of general public. The allegation against the Institution may amount to professional misconduct in certain circumstances but if such charges are levelled against individual members and specially when they are backed by certain facts then it is not for the Bar Council to act in the matter and lay the charge of professional misconduct and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the advocate who made the allegation rather it is for the member who feels that he has been defamed to take appropriate proceedings under the law of the land. The Special Committee of the State Bar Council in its order dated 14.1.2009 taking cognizance has noted the fact that such action of the appellant may amount to making personal allegation without any basis. If that were the finding of the Special Committee, we are of the view that it should have left it open to the concerned member to have taken action against the appellant for defaming his reputation. 32. If that were the finding of the Special Committee, we are of the view that it should have left it open to the concerned member to have taken action against the appellant for defaming his reputation. 32. We, however, do not agree with the submission of the appellant that the Disciplinary Committee could not have returned the disciplinary proceeding to the State Bar Council since there is no provision for the same in the Act or the Rules. It is always open to a Disciplinary Committee, irrespective of any such provision in the Act or the Rules, to return the records to the Special Committee/State Bar Council based upon proper reasons. 33. We also do not agree with the submission of the appellant that the State Bar Council could not have transferred the matter to the Bar Council of India. Under Section 36 of the Advocates Act, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India may either of its own motion or on a report by any State Bar Council or on application made to it by any person interested, withdraw for inquiry before itself any proceedings for disciplinary action against any advocate pending before the Disciplinary Committee of any State Bar Council and dispose of the same. Any such sending of the records by the State Bar Council with request to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India to take up the matter is well within the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Advocates Act, subject to the ultimate decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India to decide and dispose of the said matter itself. The submissions of the appellant can only be valid to the extent that no State Bar Council can compel the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India to hear the matter itself. 34. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.8.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10226 of 2009 is set aside and the resolution dated 14.1.2009 as also 22.5.2009 of the Special Committee as also the notice dated 11.8.2009 issued by the Bar Council of India and the entire proceeding of D.C. Enquiry No. 4/2009 against the appellant are quashed.