The impugned report must provide reasoning and establish violations of professional conduct regulations to sustain disciplinary proceedings.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the report dated 08.08.2016 (hereafter ‘the impugned report’) submitted by the Disciplinary Committee of respondent no.1 (the Council of Architecture–hereafter ‘the Council’). The Disciplinary Committee has found the petitioner “guilty of violation of Regulation 2(1)(viii) of the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989”. The said clause requires an Architect to maintain a high standard of integrity.

2. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were commenced pursuant to a complaint dated 03.06.2015 filed by respondent no.2 (who is also an architect). Respondent No.2 had alleged that the petitioner violated the public notice dated 16.02.2015 (published on 20.02.2015) issued by the Council inasmuch as the petitioner‘s website also indicated that the petitioner had collaborated with various architectural and design firms (twenty in number) located all over the world. Respondent no.2 had reasoned that this implied that there was a definite financial arrangement between the clients, the petitioner and foreign collaborators which required to be inquired into. Respondent no.2 had colourfully termed the action of the petitioner in disclosing his foreign the collaborations on his website as “cocking a snook” at the Council’s public notice.

3. The petitioner also impugns the public notice dated 16.02.2015 (which was published on 20.02.2015). However, Mr. Nayyar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has restricted the petitioner‘s challenge at this stage to the impugned report dated 08.08.2016. He submitted that the said report was unreasoned and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the Council submitted that the present writ petition was premature since the impugned report had not been accepted by the Council.

4. Although, this Court was inclined to reject the petition as being premature, however, it is ex-facie clear that the impugned report is unsustainable. Further, the finding of the Disciplinary Committee that the petitioner has not maintained a high standard of integrity is sufficient to sully the petitioner‘s reputation. Therefore, this Court considers it apposite to examine the controversy as raised in the petition.

5. The petitioner is an architect by profession. In 2005, the petitioner started a website for providing information about the work done by the petitioner in the subject field.

6. On 16.02.2015, the Council issued a public notice whereby it was stated that the Council has been receiving complaints regarding the violation of the Architects Act, 1972 (hereafter ‘the Act’) by foreign architects, consulting firms and others by way of hiring foreign architects to provide architectural services, without following the due procedure in terms of Section 37 of the Act. The said public notice further stated that several Indian architects have been working as local or liaison architects for the projects, which have been designed by foreign architects, without ensuring compliance of the Act and all the aforesaid activities would attract penal action under the provisions of the Act.

7. Thereafter, on 03.06.2015, respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Council alleging that the petitioner had acted in the contravention of the impugned notice. Consequently, the Council sent a letter to the petitioner on 08.06.2015 calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply to the aforesaid complaint. The petitioner filed his reply on 17.07.2015 denying all the allegations made in the said complaint.

8. On 27.08.2015, the Council held its 64th meeting wherein it formed an opinion that a prima facie case is made against the petitioner and, therefore, it decided to refer the matter to its Disciplinary Committee for further investigation. The petitioner was called upon to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 08.08.2016 to submit his case. The petitioner appeared before the Discipli