Case Law Details
In the present case several charges have been leveled against the Respondent alleging misconduct enlisted in the Second Schedule of the Act. The Disciplinary Committee has found that the respondent has been guilty of the relevant clauses in the Second Schedule as far as Charges 1 (iv), 2, 10, 12 and 13 are concerned. The Disciplinary Committee’s findings suggest that it has examined the material based on the re-audit report and the complaint made to it. Due care has been taken by the Committee, during the course of proceedings to consider each and every aspect and perception put forth by the Respondent while explaining his point of view on the charges alleged. The proceedings have been carried out in consonance with the twin principles of fair play and natural justice. The Disciplinary Committee has arrived at findings of fact which in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be unjust, unwarranted or contrary to law. This Court while deciding a Reference needs to keep in mind the limitations of its role. It does not sit in appeal over the decision making process of the Disciplinary Committee and the recommendations so made by the Council of the Institute. Hence in examining the Report and the recommendation of the Council it cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record or assess the findings of the Committee as an Appellate Authority.
In discharge of his duties as a Special Auditor entrusted with the work of Audit of the Bank, the Committee has found the respondent guilty of having violated various provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and non compliance of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank Of India while disbursing loans. The respondent while carrying out the Audit found that he had failed to disclose material fact known to him and/ or failed to report material mis-statement known to him to appear in a financial statement or that he was grossly negligent in performing his duties or had failed to obtain sufficient information to warrant the expression of an opinion or his exceptions are sufficiently material to negate the expression of opinion.
These are serious flaws, in conduct of and in discharge of professional conduct of a Chartered Accountant. As is evident on reading the provisions of Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 the Council has wide powers to regulate the conduct of its Members and take disciplinary The Council can make recommendations to the High Court to act on such recommendation. The Council is the custodian of the interests of the profession and its members. Once a Council as a custodian finds that its Member has committed a breach of its code of conduct and has done anything detrimental to the interest and prestige of the profession, he is liable to disciplinary action under, Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
Keeping these parameters in mind, we find that the we have no hesitation in accepting the recommendation of the Council which has decided to recommend that the name of the Respondent be removed from the Register of Members for a period of two years.
Accordingly, we answer the Reference by accepting the recommendation and accordingly direct the Council to remove the name of the Respondent from the Register of Members for a period of two years. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
