ORDER:

The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant, enrolled on 08.06.2017 under Membership No. 242569 with the ICAI. A complaint dated 10.11.2019 was filed by the 5threspondent before the disciplinary authorities of ICAI, alleging irregularities in the petitioner’s audit of M/s Muppa Green Grandeur Welfare Association, a not-for-profit flat owners’ association. The petitioner asserts that the complainant lacked locus standi, as he was neither a member of the association nor properly authorized, claiming only—without proof—that his son and daughter-in-law were members who had empowered him to act. Upon receiving notice of this complaint, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 02.01.2020, addressing each allegation and asserting that no professional misconduct had occurred. Despite this, the disciplinary authority formed a prima facie opinion on 21.08.2020 holding that certain allegations fell within Items (6), (7), and (8) of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Act, thereby concluding that the petitioner was prima facie guilty.

1.1. Subsequently, a notice dated 10.12.2020, received on 15.12.2020, required the petitioner to submit a written statement within 14 days, which he did on 23.12.2020, reiterating his defense and denying all allegations of irregularity. This was followed by an email dated 04.01.2021 scheduling a hearing for 21.02.2021; however, the petitioner appeared before the disciplinary committee on 21.01.2021, which he understood to be the first hearing. According to the petitioner, this hearing should have been limited to framing charges and recording his plea under the prescribed procedure. Instead, the committee proceeded to hear arguments from both sides on that very first date. The petitioner states that he was under the bona fide impression that this was only a preliminary interaction and that further hearings would be scheduled for leading evidence and cross-examination as contemplated under the governing rules. In fact, on 24.01.2021, he sent an email informing the authority of his grandmother’s demise, requesting not to schedule further hearings in his absence.

1.2. However, while awaiting further communication, the petitioner received a letter dated 26.02.2021 on 01.03.2021 enclosing an order dated 11.02.2021, which had already found him guilty of professional misconduct. The petitioner contends that this communication revealed that the disciplinary authority had effectively treated the hearing on 21.01.2021 as the final hearing, reserved the matter for orders without notifying him, and concluded the proceedings in violation of the prescribed procedure. The petitioner contends that mandatory requirements—such as issuing notice to the Director (Discipline), allowing presentation of evidence, and granting opportunity for cross-examination—were completely disregarded. The petitioner further highlights that the rules require the Director (Discipline) to play a central role in presenting the case, yet no notice was issued to the Director (Discipline), and instead the complainant was allowed to assume a dominant role, thereby improperly converting the proceedings into a private dispute.

1.3. The petitioner further contends that the disciplinary authority misapplied Accounting Standard AS-29 to a not-for-profit association and failed to consider his defense or provide reasons for accepting the complainant’s case. He contends that the decision was one-sided and unsupported by proper reasoning or evaluation of evidence. Following the adverse order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.03.2021, addressed to the disciplinary committee, explicitly pointing out procedural irregularities and requesting a fresh hearing in accordance with the rules. Despite this, the authority proceeded to pass a further order dated 08.07.2021, communicated through a covering letter dated 11.10.2021 and received on 18.10.2021, confirming the penalty of removal and fine without considering his representation or granting