VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J.

The respondent is a chartered accountant practising at Tanjore. In October, 1949, information was received by the Council of the Institute of chartered Accountants of India that one Natarajan who was an articled clerk under the respondent from August 2, 1946 to August 1, 1949 was during that period employed in the post office at Tanjore, that he did not undergo proper training and that he was not eligible for a certificate of service. The Council called for information on the subject from the Postmaster, Tanjore, who replied on October 29, 1949 that "Natarajan was in the department up to June 23, 1949 after which he resigned the appointment." On January 18, 1950 the Council enquired of the respondent whether permission had been obtained under Rule 44 of the Auditors Certificates Rules, 1932, for the articled clerk being engaged in business as an employee in the post office. The respondent replied on January 24, 1950 that he was not aware that Natarajan was employed in the post office at the time he was an articled apprentice and that he performed his duties as a clerk satisfactorily. Thereupon on August 3, 1950 the Council referred the matter for enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee, who framed two charges against the respondent : (1) that he allowed Natarajan to work as an articled clerk while he was in employment in the post office and (2) that he issued improperly a certificate of completion of service. The respondent field a written statement in which he re-iterated that he was not aware that Natarajan was employed in the post office when he was an articled clerk and that he did his work as an articled clerk satisfactorily. He also raised some legal contentions which have been repeated in the arguments before us and they will be considered presently. The Committee heard the matter fully and submitted a report that the respondent must have had knowledge that Natarajan was in service in the post office while he was an articled clerk and that his conduct in entertaining him as an articled clerk was, therefore, unprofessional; that Natarajan could not have discharged his duties as an articled clerk properly; that the training was inadequate and that the certificate of completion of service on which Natarajan was enrolled as a chartered accountant did not represent the true position. The respondent was accordingly found guilty on both the charges and held to be unfit to be a member of the Institute. The matter comes before us under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act (XXXVIII of 1949).Mr. Gopalan the learned advocate who appeared for the respondent firstly contended that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee were vitiated by irregularities because the respondent had not been given 14 days time for filing written statement as required by Regulation 11-A of the regulations. There is no substance in this objection. Section 21 of the Act provides that the Council might enquire into charges of misconduct against any member of the Institute either on receipt of information or upon complaint. Where there is a complaint the procedure to be followed for enquiry thereunder is prescribed by Regulation 11 and sub-clause (6) of that regulation provides that a member against whom a complaint is made may file his written statement within 14 days. This regulation in terms applies only when there is a complaint and not information. In this case though the starting point for the action taken by the Council was letter dated October 9, 1949 purporting to have been written by one Viswanathan, he disclaimed all knowledge of it, with the result that there was before the Council only information and no complaint; because there can be no complaint when there is no complainant. There was no regulation at that time laying down the procedure to be followed in the case of enquiries made on information received and the requirements of law would be satisfied if the rules of natural justice are observed. I