This case involves disciplinary action taken by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) against CA. Sushil Suresh Bajaj for professional misconduct related to his certification of e-Forms. Here’s a detailed summary of the proceedings and the decision made by the Disciplinary Committee:
1. Background and Allegations: The complaint was filed against CA. Sushil Suresh Bajaj by Mr. Sabir Jaseem Shaikh, alleging professional misconduct. The allegations included violations falling within the meaning of Item (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. This likely pertains to negligence or failure to exercise due diligence.
2. Investigation and Hearing: The Disciplinary Committee conducted an investigation into the matter as per the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act and the related rules. The respondent, CA. Sushil Suresh Bajaj, was given an opportunity to present his case before the Committee. The hearing took place on March 19, 2024, during which the respondent provided both verbal and written representations.
3. Respondent’s Defense: During the hearing, CA. Sushil Suresh Bajaj presented several points in his defense:
- He explained that he joined the firm in 2016 and his digital signature was misused by office staff, which he reported to the senior partner via email.
- He clarified that the client involved in this case was not originally in his portfolio, but he worked on it at the request of his senior partner.
- He requested leniency, claiming to be a victim of a conspiracy within the firm.
- In his written representation, he mentioned the circumstances surrounding the admission of a director and the requirements regarding digital signatures.
4. Committee’s Findings: The Disciplinary Committee considered the respondent’s defense along with the findings of the investigation. Despite the respondent’s claims of being a victim of a conspiracy, the Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct. They noted that the respondent, while certifying e-Forms, failed to exercise due diligence and neglected to verify that other directors were disqualified from signing the forms.
5. Decision and Penalty: Considering the gravity of the misconduct, the Committee decided to reprimand CA. Sushil Suresh Bajaj and imposed a fine of Rs. 30,000. The respondent was given 60 days to pay the fine from the date of receipt of the order.
In conclusion, the Disciplinary Committee found CA. Sushil Suresh Bajaj guilty of professional misconduct for his negligence in certifying e-Forms. Despite the respondent’s claims of being a victim of a conspiracy, the Committee determined that his actions constituted a breach of professional standards and warranted disciplinary action.
*****
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA
(Set up by an Act of Parliament)
PR-278/18/DD/281/2018/DC/1361/2020
[DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE [BENCH-II (2024-2025)]
[Constituted under Section 21B of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949]
ORDER UNDER SECTION 21B(3) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 READ WITH RULE 19(1) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT OF CASES) RULES, 2007
[PR-278/18/DD/281/2018/DC/1361/2020]
In the matter of:
Mr. Sabir Jaseem Shaikh…………… Complainant
Versus
CA. Sushil Suresh Bajaj (M. No.131144)
…..Respondent
MEMBERS PRESENT:-
CA. Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal, Presiding Officer (in person)
Mrs. Rani S. Nair, IRS (Retd.), Government Nominee (through VC)
Shri Arun Kumar, IAS (Retd.), Government Nominee (in person)
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Member (in person)
CA. Cotha S Srinivas, Member (in person)
Date of Hearing: 19th March, 2024
Date of Order: 9th May, 2024
1. That vide Findings under Rule 18(17) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, the Disciplinary Committee was, inter-alia, of the opinion that Sushil Suresh Bajaj (M. No.131144) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’) is GUILTY of Professional Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (7) Part I of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act 1949.
2. That pursuant to the said Findings, an action under Section 21B(3) of the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006 was contemplated against the Respondent and a communication was addressed to him thereby granting an opportunity of being heard in person / through video conferencing and to make representation before the Committee on 19th March 2024.
3. The Committee noted that on the date of hearing held on 19th March 2024, the Respondent was present through video conferencing and made his verbal representation on the Findings of the Disciplinary Committee, inter-alia, stating that he qualified his CA examination in 2008 and joined the firm in 2016. His Digital signature was in the custody of the firm which had been misused by office staff for which a complaint was made to the senior partner of the firm through email. The instant client was not in his portfolio of clients. However, he had worked in good faith at the request of his senior partner. He further Mr. Sabir Jaseem Shaikh -vs- CA. Sushil Suresh Bajaj (M. No.131144) requested for a lenient view in the case as he is a victim of the conspiracy of the firm. The Committee also noted that that the Respondent in his written representation, inter-alia, stated as under:
(a) the admission of Mr. Adil Khan as a director was done with digital signature of Mr. Sabir Jassem Shaikh which was also attested by CA. Sachin Gupta.
(b) Further, the email is very clear about the fact that the DSC of Mr. Sabir Jaseem Shaikh was required to be affixed by UJA Mumbai office.
4. The Committee considered the reasoning as contained in Findings holding the Respondent Guilty of Professional Misconduct vis-à-vis written and verbal representation of the Respondent.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record including verbal and written representations on the Findings, the Committee held that that the Respondent while certifying the e-Forms, failed to exercise due diligence and also failed to check that other directors were not eligible to sign the e-Forms as they were disqualified directors. Hence, the Professional Misconduct on the part of the Respondent is clearly established as spelt out in the Committee’s Findings dated 7th February 2024 which is to be read in consonance with the instant Order being passed in the case.
6. Accordingly, the Committee was of the view that ends of justice will be met if punishment is given to him in commensurate with his professional misconduct.
7. Thus, the Committee ordered that Sushil Suresh Bajaj (M. No.131144), Pune be reprimanded and also a Fine of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) be imposed upon him payable within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the Order.
sd/-
(CA. RANJEET KUMAR AGARWAL)
PRESIDING OFFICER
sd/-
(MRS. RANI S. NAIR, IRS RETD.)
GOVERNMENT NOMINEE
sd/-
(SHRI ARUN KUMAR, IAS RETD.)
GOVERNMENT NOMINEE
sd/-
(CA. SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL)
MEMBER
sd/-
(CA. COTHA S. SRINIVAS)
MEMBER
