JUDGMENT :

1. The writ-applicant herein is a Cooperative Bank and the present writ-application is instituted through its Vice President challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 - Disciplinary Committee constituted under Section 21B of the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 1949. The writ-applicant Bank herein was the complainant before the institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to the effect that the respondent No.3 herein was appointed as Concurrent Auditor of the writ-applicant Bank since 2004-05. During financial year 2007-08 and 2008-09 the respondent No.3 as stated by the writ-applicant herein in the complaint dated 10.6.2013 without actual verification of cash, gave a clean report for number of months and due to aforesaid action of the respondent No.3, cashier of the writ-applicant Bank misappropriated cash to the tune of Rs.43,00,000/-. On the basis of aforesaid complaint at the instance of the writ-applicant Bank herein the respondent No.2 conducted an inquiry, prima facie opinion dated 1.8.2015 was formed looking into various documents that the respondent No.3 was guilty of professional and other misconducts falling within the meaning of Clause (7) of Part-I of the Second Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

2. The respondent No.1 herein passed the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 whereby Respondent No.3 herein was held to be not guilty of Professional and any other misconduct and the same has resulted in filing of the present writ-application at the instance of the original complainant i.e. the writ-applicant Bank being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 herein praying for the following reliefs :-

“(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding and declaring that the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee - Respondent No.1 dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure-C) is a non-speaking order as well as order without considering the numerous documents on the record of the case and it is cursory one and be further pleased to declare the same as void and be pleased to quash and set-aside the same.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-C).

(C) Such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(D) Costs of this petition be provided for to the petitioner.”

3. Heard Mr. M.B. Gandhi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant Bank and Ms. Dharmishta Raval, the learned advocate appearing for appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Submissions on behalf of the writ-applicant :-

4. Mr. M.B. Gandhi, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in view of the callous attitude of respondent No.3 – cashier Mr. Milind Kothari siphoned/misappropriated the writ-applicant Bank to the tune of Rs.43 lakhs. Reliance was placed on the criminal proceeding initiated by the writ-applicant Bank against the cashier Mr. Milind Kothari wherein the criminal proceedings came to be initiated against the cashier being Criminal Case No.9 of 2010 wherein the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.11, Ahmedabad by an order dated 21.8.2012 acquitted Mr. Milind Kothari in the said proceedings. Reliance was also placed on some of the contentions/findings considered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the judgment that together with the remark by the learned Magistrate to the effect that "In this way the Chartered Accountant Manojbhai Pandya had shown his carelessness in preparing the Audit Report". Placing reliance on the same it was submitted that the aforesaid would clearly establish that the respondent No.3 was guilty of professional misconduct. It was submit