TYAGI, J.—Mr. J.S. Bhati has filed this appeal under sec. 22-A of the Chartered Accountant Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act) challenging the correctness of the order dated 14th September, 1973, passed by the Council the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

The appellant is the proprietor of the firm of Chartered Accountants namely as M/s. Bhati and Company, Bikaner. It is alleged that the appellant had audited the accounts of Shri Patel Primary School, Sri Ganganagar continuously for the years 1965 to 1969 as the auditor of the said Institution. For 1969-70 respondent Shri M L. Agrawal, the proprietor of the firm of Chartered Accountants carrying on his business in the name and style M/s. M.L. Agrawal & Co., was appointed as the auditor to audit the accounts of Shri Patel Primary School, Bikaner. It is said that the manager of the said school again appointed the appellant to audit its accounts for two years i.e. for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The grievance of Mr. M.L. Agrawal is that the appellant accepted this assignment for auditing the accounts of Shri Patel Primary School without complying with the mandatory requirements of sec. 22 read with cl. (8) of Schedule 1 of the Act, inasmuch as the appellant did not even care to send any notice to the respondent of his intention to accept this assignment.

3. The case of the appellant is that he received a letter of appointment from the Manager of Shri Patel Primary School on April 3, 1971, and on April 5, 1971, he sent a letter under a certificate of posting to respondent No. 2 intimating that the appellant had been appointed by the Manager of the said Institution and he intends to accept that appointment provided the respondent No. 2 had no objection; and the respondent Agrawal was requested to send his reply if he had any objection to this proposal. According to the appellant he waited for the respondents reply till April 17, 1971 when he audited the accounts of Shri Patel Primary School.

4. On a complaint filed by Shri M.L. Agrawal the Council handed over the case for enquiry to the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee after examining the appellant and the respondent submitted its report to the Council hold-ing that Mr. Bhati was guilty of the violation of cl. (8) of para 1 of the first schedule to the Act.

5. The Council then served a notice on Shri Bhati, but the first notice came back with a remark from the post office that the addressee had left without leaving his addressee. The said notice was again sent to the appellant but it was returned with a remark from the post office that the appellant refused to accept it. The Council then considered the report of the Disciplinary Committee and found the appellant guilty of misconduct as he failed to comply with the requirements of cl. (8) of Part I of the first schedule, and held that Mr. Bhati had only sent a latter under certificate of posting without obtaining any acknowledgement thereof. The mere posting of a letter by Mr. Bhati addressed to Mr. Agrawal was not found sufficient to comply with the requirements of cl. (8) and, therefore, the Council found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and ordered that the name of the appellant be removed from the membership of the Institute for a period of one month with effect from the date of the order i.e. from 14th September, 1973. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by Mr. Bhati.

6. Section 22 of the Act defines professional misconduct as follows:—

"22. Professional misconduct defined—For the purpose of this Act, the expression"professional misconduct" shall be deemed to including any act or omission specified in any of the Schedules, but nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or abridge in any way the power conferred or duty cast on the Council under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 21 to inquire into the conduct of any member of the Institute under an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document