The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that the review is to ensure compliance with the statute and rules, not to adjudicate disputed issues between the parties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in W.P.No.3854 of 2003:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in No.IRDA/CAE/1124 dated 1.11.2002 and quash the same consequently direct the first respondent to remove the petitioner-s name from the list of persons held guilty of professional misconduct that it has issued and circulated, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Prayer in W.P.No.5309 of 2003 :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records to quash the disciplinary proceedings No.25-CA(10)/97 against the petitioner culminating in the impugned letter of the First respondent dated 23.04.2002.)

Common Order:

The petition in W.P.No.5039 of 2003 has been filed to quash the disciplinary proceedings No.25-CA(10)/97 dated 23.04.2002. W.P.No.3854 of 2003 has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent in proceeding dated 1.11.2002 and to direct the respondents to remove the petitioner-s name from the list of persons held guilty of professional misconduct which has been issued and circulated.

2. The petitioner states that he has practised as a Chartered Accountant for 26 years. The petitioner was a partner in the firm Price Waterhouse from 1991 till March 2002. The petitioner was in charge of handling audits and taxation for several multinational companies.

 3. In December 2002, the respondent issued the impugned letter dated 01.11.2002, titled “Empanelment of auditors for statutory audit of insurance companies” in which the first respondent has said the following:

“With reference to the above subject, we are herewith enclosing list of 73 members of ICA (along with their membership number and other particulars) who have been held guilty of misconduct by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India during the last financial year i.e. From 1st April 2001 to 31st March 2002.

You are hereby informed not to appoint such firms as statutory auditors whose partner-s name is appearing in the above-referred list of 73 members

You are further required to insist upon the statutory auditors to obtain a certificate from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India that the firm or any of the partners of the firm are not having any disciplinary case pending against them. A copy of such letter is required to be sent to us.”

4. The names of 73 persons were listed in the above letter. The name of the petitioner was found in Serial No.38 of the list. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 10.12.2002 to the first respondent on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was pending during the relevant point of time when the impugned letter was issued. No final order has been passed and therefore, the letter dated 01.12.2012 is pre-conceived causing aspiration on the image of the petitioner and therefore, it is to be set aside.

5. Admittedly, a disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-s firm “Price Waterhouse”placed an advertisement in the “Deccan Herald” Newspaper, in the appointments section, calling for the tax professionals to join the firm.

6. The petitioner states that the firm was looking for tax professionals who were experienced, dynamic and talented for the purpose of handling international work from clients abroad and therefore, the advertisement was issued. Consequent to the advertisement, various tax professionals responded and the firm went ahead with the recruitment of suitable candidates. After a lapse of 2 years, the firm received the letter dated 09.04.1996 from the Secretary of the first respondent Institute stating that the advertisements placed in the Newspaper, on 17.10.1994 by the firm, amounted to solicitation of professional work in violation of Cla