PRAKASH NARAIN, J (Oral) - (1.) The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India having agreed with the findings of its Disciplinary Committee with regard to alleged professional misconduct committed by the respondent, has referred the matter to this court under sub-secion (5) of Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, as amended by the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act. 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with the recommendation that a reprimand be administered to the respondent.
(2.) Shri V. K. Jain, proprietor of M,/s. Vee Kay &Co., hereinafter referred to as the Complainant filed a complaint against the respondent on October 27, 1976. The complaint, as filed, is Exhibit I on the record. A copy of the complaint was sent to the respondent who refuted the charges. The matter came up before the Council which took the prima facie view that the respondent has committed professional misconduct and so, referred the complaint for enquiry to its Disciplinary Committee. This Committee met on November 4, 1977. The proceedings before the Committee concluded on that very day. 'On November 7, 1977 the respondent's counsel wrote to the Disciplinary Committee to re-hear the matter. This request was turned down by the Disciplinary Committee by its communication dated November 21, 1977, addressed to respondent's counsel. In the meanwhile on November 14, 1977 the respondent's counsel had submitted written arguments, describing the same to be the interim written arguments, praying that the same may be considered. Referring to its reply to the respondent's letter of November 7, 1977 the Disciplinary Committee declined to consider the written arguments submitted by the respondent's counsel. It then proceeded to record its findings which it did on December 21, 1977 and submitted the report to the Council. As noticed earlier, the Council at its 81st meeting held on December 22, 23 and 24, 1977 at New Delhi considered the report of the Disciplinary Committee and decided to recommend to the High Court that the respondent be reprimanded.
(3.) Although the learned counsel appearing for the Institute and the respondent advanced lengthy arguments on various facets of the case yet, in our opinion, it is not necessary to refer to all those. We are of the view that this enquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Committee not only in violation of the rules and regulations but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Indeed, it may not be incorrect to say that the members of the Disciplinary Committee seem to be unaware of how to hold quasi-judicial proceedings. We are thus of the view that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee, as adopted by the Council, cannot be upheld. We take this view because we find that in this case the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice have been completely disregarded.;