P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This matter comes up before us under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants held the respondent P.K. Mukherji, a member of the Institute, guilty of misconduct under Clauses 7 and 10 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Act. Clauses 7 and 10, Part I of the Second Schedule of the Act read as follows:-- "Professional misconduct in relation to Chartered Accountants in practice requiring action by a High Court. A Chartered Accountant in practice shall be deemed to be guilty of professional misconduct, if he- 7. is grossly negligent in the conduct of his professional duties; 10. fails to keep moneys of his client in a separate banking account or to use such moneys for purposes for which they are intended."
(2.) According to the procedure the Disciplinary Committee investigated the complaint in this case. The complainants did not chose to appear before the Disciplinary Committee and sent a letter dated 25th January 1963 requesting that the complaint should be dropped. The letter dated 25th January 1963 from the complainants reads as follows:-- "The Secretary, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Mathura Road, New Delhi--1. Dear Sir, We have read the Statement of Sri P.K. Mukherji respondent and have made inquiries of the facts stated by him. We appreciate his difficulties and think the same to be genuine. Mr. Mukharji, Co-liquidator of Messrs. Pashupati Textile Mills Ltd. (in liquidation), Sri K. Bhattacharjee who we understand is in East Pakistan has let him down by not handing over the necessary papers and accounts to Mr. Mukherji. In the circumstances we feel no useful purpose will be served by our proceeding against Mr. Mukherji. As. such, we shall feel obliged if the complaint is dropped. Thanking you for the trouble taken by your council. Yours faithfully, For Sunderdas Thakersey and Bros., Sd. Illegible Partner."
(3.) This letter did not dissuade the Disciplinary Committee from proceeding with the matter. But the Disciplinary Committee did not apparently realise how severely handicapped it was by the non-appearance of the complainants and by the absence of any evidence in support of the very complaint, it was supposed to judge.;