ORDER:

The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant, having membership with ICAI. He was appointed as statutory auditor of M/s I Service Globe (P) Ltd. on 05.08.2014. According to him, prior to his appointment, the 5threspondent, who had served as Managing Director of the said company and was also a Chartered Accountant, was in charge of its accounts and had signed the financial statements for the year 2012–2013. The petitioner alleges that the 5threspondent had made several wrongful accounting entries, and after being confronted, resigned and left the company. In this context, he refers to a criminal complaint lodged by the company against the 5threspondent under FIR No. 1278 of 2014 dated 27.10.2014.

1.1. The petitioner states that, in order to build a defence in the said criminal proceedings, the 5threspondent subsequently initiated a disciplinary complaint dated 11.08.2017 before the 4threspondent authority. In this complaint, the 5threspondent alleged that for the financial years ending 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2015, the petitioner had wrongly included a sum of Rs. 65,19,251/- described as “Sridhar Gopinathan Misappropriation Amount” under “Short Term Loans and Advances” in the audited balance sheets of M/s I Service Globe (P) Ltd., and further alleged that an amount of Rs. 10,11,754/- payable to the complainant was omitted from the financial statements for 2014–2015 and was neither repaid nor confirmed. The petitioner, however, asserts that all entries made by him were correct, fully supported by evidence, and that the complaint was baseless, malicious, and intended to derail the criminal proceedings against the 5threspondent.

1.2. Pursuant to the complaint dated 11.08.2017, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He filed a written statement denying all allegations, after which a rejoinder was submitted by the complainant. The 4threspondent also called for additional documents from both sides. Thereafter, a prima facie opinion dated 24.10.2018 was issued in Ref. No. PR-250/2017/DD-260/2017 holding that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of professional misconduct. The petitioner contends that this opinion was reached without proper appreciation of pleadings or evidence and contained serious factual errors.

1.3. Subsequently, notice dated 15.02.2019 was issued by the disciplinary committee (3rdrespondent), and the petitioner submitted a detailed response to the prima facie opinion. Despite this, the petitioner states that the proceedings were conducted in violation of mandatory procedure. He specifically alleges that no proper notice was issued to the Director (Discipline) (4threspondent), that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with Rule 18 of the 2007 Rules, and that he was denied opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses.

1.4. The petitioner states that the disciplinary committee nonetheless proceeded to pass the order dated 03.02.2021 holding him guilty of misconduct. He thereafter submitted a representation dated 12.03.2021 to the committee seeking reconsideration and a speaking order under Section 21 of the Act, pointing out procedural lapses. However, the petitioner states that despite this representation, the committee proceeded to pass the punishment order dated 31.03.2021 imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and directing removal of his name from the register of members for three months. Although the order was dated 31.03.2021, it was communicated to him only on 11.09.2021, allegedly depriving him of timely opportunity to challenge it.

1.5. The petitioner contends that disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act are inquisitorial in nature and must be conducted strictly in accordance with Rule 18, which mandates participation of the Director (Discipline), issuance of notices, production of evidence, and opportunity for cross-examination. He contends that the entire procedure was distorted, converting what should have been an objective inquiry into a pri