IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the disciplinary action against a Chartered Accountant for misconduct, emphasizing the need for integrity and professional standards in the profession.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravinder Dudeja, J.)

PROLOGUE

1. This is a Reference under Section 21 (5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [ “Act”] as it was prior to its amendment in the year 2006 in respect of Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Chartered Accountant (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”), whereby, the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) had proposed the removal of respondent’s name from the Register of Members for a period of six months vide order dated 14.12.2011.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Brief facts, as enumerated from the reference are that complainant Sh. Mohit Gupta, vide his complaint dated 16.03.2005, leveled allegations against the respondent that he had sold 100 shares of Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. to him in November 1999, but the Transfer Deed for the transfer of shares was lodged only on 04.11.2004. In the interregnum, respondent continued to receive dividends and in July 2004, obtained duplicate shares in his name by misrepresenting and filing Indemnity Bond and Affidavit that the original Shares Certificates were lost.

3. The Council in its meeting held on 7th to 9th August, 2008, was of the prima facie opinion that respondent was guilty of professional and/or other misconduct and accordingly decided to refer the case to Disciplinary Committee for enquiry. The relevant extract of the meeting is reproduced hereunder:-

Item No. 22:"Complaint" cases under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

xx xx xx xx

1167. Mohit Gupta Vs. Gurvinder Singh (M,No.16024) [25-CA(90)/2005]

The Council was prima facie of the opinion that the Respondent was guilty of professional and/or other misconduct. It was, therefore, decided to refer the case to the Disciplinary Committee for inquiry.”

4. The Disciplinary Committee of the Council vide order dated 27.01.2011, found the respondent guilty of “other misconduct” under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act. The conclusion recorded by the Disciplinary Committee is reproduced as under:-

“Thus, in conclusion, in the considered opinion of the Committee, the Respondent is guilty of 'Other Misconduct' under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.”

5. The Report of the Disciplinary Committee of the Council was considered in the Special Meeting of the Council held on 14.12.2011 and upon consideration of the Report along with various written representations received from respondent, the Council decided to accept the Report of the Disciplinary Committee and accordingly held him guilty of “other misconduct” under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act. The Council also decided to recommend to the High Court that the name of respondent be removed from the Register of Members for a period of six months. The relevant extract of the Minutes is as under:-

“Decision:

On consideration of the Report of the Disciplinary Committee alongwith the written representation dated 30th May, 2011, 7th June, 2011, 10th July, 2011, 22nd July, 2011, 8th November, 2011, December, 2011 received from the Respondent, the Council decided to accept the report of Disciplinary Committee and accordingly held that the Respondent was guilty of "Other Misconduct" under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

The Council also decided to recommend to the High Court that the name of the Respondent be removed from the Register of Members for a period of six months.”

6. Reference has accordingly been received by this Court under Section 21(5) of the Act. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 21(5) of the Act, which reads as under:-

“Section 21(5), where the misconduct in respect of which the Council has found any Member of the Institute guilty of his misconduct other than any such misconduct as is referred to in sub Section 4, it shall forward the case to the High Court with its recommendations thereon.”

FIRST ROUND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT:

7. The Division Bench