( 1 ). The petitioner is a chartered accountant. On the basis of a complaint made by the respondent No. 4, the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as a Council) referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee to examine the question as to whether the petitioner was guilty of any professional or other misconduct. There were three charges framed against the petitioner. After examining the written submissions and hearing the petitioner, the disciplinary committee in its report dated 17. 01. 2000 in paragraph 8. 3 thereof recorded as under:- "8. 3 The Respondent admitted the first charge against him, which read as follows:-

"that the Respondent demanded and received large sums of money towards advance payment and claimed expenses beyond the eligibility /entitlement as pert RBI guidelines and failed to refund the unspent money. "the third charge was not examined by the disciplinary committee in view of the statement of the complainant that it had no evidence to support the same. Thus, in the inquiry report the disciplinary committee was concerned with the second charge only. In respect of this charge, i. e. the second charge the disciplinary committee found the petitioner to be not guilty The only charge which remained was charge No. 1 which, as aforesaid, had been admitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the disciplinary committee concluded its report dated 17. 1. 2000 as under:-

"in conclusion, the Committee is of the opinion that the charge against the Respondent for having demanded and received large sums of money towards advance payment, claiming expenses beyond the eligibility/entitlement as per RBI guidelines and retaining the unspent money for a considerable period of time, is proved beyond doubt. In the opinion of the Committee, the Respondent has, there- fore, committed "other misconduct" as defined in the Code of Conduct. and thus guilty under Section 21 read with Section 22 of the chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Committee is of the further opinion that rest of the charges against the Respondent are not proved. "

( 2 ). Based upon the admission of the petitioner, the disciplinary committee after holding the inquiry in the prescribed manner reported the result of the same to the Council. The Council considered the report of the disciplinary committee at its meetings held from 21st to 24th June, 2001 at New Delhi. Although, the complainant bank (respondent No. 4) submitted its written representation dated 29th May, 2001 on the report of the disciplinary committee nobody appeared in its behalf before the Council for making oral submissions. The petitioner submitted his written representation dated 12th June, 2001 and also appeared in person before the Council on 23rd June, 2001 and made oral submissions. The Council, upon considering the report of the disciplinary committee along with the written representation dated 29. 5. 2001 of the respondent No. 4, the petitioner s representation dated 12th June, 2001 and also the oral submissions made by the petitioner before it, accepted the report of the disciplinary committee and accordingly, found the petitioner to be guilty of "other misconduct", in terms of Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). By a letter dated 28th September, 2001 the Council informed the petitioner of the same and also indicated to the petitioner that the Council had decided to recommend to the High Court that the petitioner s name be removed from the register of members for a period of three months. It was also indicated that the detailed finding of the Council would be sent to the petitioner in due course.

( 3 ). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the Council on 3. 6. 2002 seeking a review of the "decision" of the Council taken under Section 21 (5) read with Section 21 (3) of the said Act on the report of the disciplinary com