1. The charges framed, if they were substantiated would prove no more than negligence on the part of the Vakil's clerk. It is only fair to the Vakil to say that he has throughout accepted civil responsibility for his clerk's negligence to the extent of any proved loss in consequence of it by the client. But it has been laid down clearly in England in the case of G.M.C. (in the proceedings against Mr Mayor Cooks, a Solicitor) 86 Law Times, 468, and also by a Bench of this Court in a judgment delivered on the 7th December, 1923 In the Matter of Dr. T.C.K. Kunup, Bar-at-Law, Advocate, High Court, Madras, the Court consisting of the then Chief Justice, Phillips, and Ramesam, JJ. that negligence by itself is not professional misconduct; into that offence there must enter the element of moral delinquency. Of that there is no suggestion here, and we arc therefore able to say that there is no case to investigate, and that no reflection adverse to his professional honour rests upon Mr. Munuswami Naidu.