2022 (2) TMI 611 - HC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary complaint / proceedings against the member of ICAI - Validity of proceedings of the 38th meeting of the Board of Discipline of the respondent, wherein, the said committee accepted the report of the prima facie opinion of the Director Discipline in the matter of complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent 4 under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, recommending / passing the order for closure of the case - HELD THAT - The petitioner on account of certain personnel vengeance started accusing the authorities of the Chartered Accountants of India and filed a complaint with incorrect facts. Even then the complaint was enquired into by the competent authority, namely, the Director Discipline and an opportunity was provided to the petitioner to establish his case. Thereafter, an enquiry report was filed. Based on the enquiry report, the Board of Discipline has taken a decision. Thus, there is no infirmity as such and the Writ Petition itself is motivated and therefore liable to be rejected. A perusal of the enquiry report as well as the order reveals that several allegations have been made against the 4 th respondent and the authorities of Chartered Accountants of India. No doubt, the Director Discipline has relied on the apology letter given by the petitioner. In respect of the apology letter, the petitioner in his affidavit has stated that the compromise discussion were going on between the parties and during the discussion the petitioner was made to believe that the criminal case as well as the defamation case will be withdrawn and he will be be taken back as a faculty - The rejoinder filed by the complainant were also recorded in the report. But, there is no findings or reasons for the purpose of forming an opinion to close the complaint. Merely recording that the complainant has not submitted the evidence is insufficient and the documents filed by the petitioner as well as the statement are to be scrutinized, considered and appropriate findings are just and necessary, which alone will satisfy the requirements of the fair enquiry to be conducted in accordance with law. The seriousness involved must be properly considered with reference to documents and evidences made available before the Director Discipline. Contrarily, by recording complaint and the written statement, the Director Discipline ought not to have formed an opinion that the complainant made a report without any evidence. The petitioner produced the evidence, contents in the documents with regard to the grounds raised - In the absence of any such findings, the Court has to form an opinion that based on an improper enquiry the complaint was closed. Though there is an allegation of bias, malafide, etc,. This Court is not inclined to go into those issues at this point of time as the same would not be necessary as this Court has not inclined to adjudicate the factual merits of the allegations and the counter allegations set out in the Writ Petition. Thus, it has to be construed that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not enquired into properly and by following the established principles of law. The nature of the allegations set out in the complaint by the petitioner, the evidence submitted as well as the statement made are not elaborately adjudicated or any findings are given by the Director Discipline in his enquiry report - reasons and the findings in respect of each issue or allegations made are necessary to form an opinion that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner. This Court has no hesitation in forming an opinion that the case deserves to be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for conducting a fresh enquiry - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Board of Discipline's decision dated 30.10.2013.
2. Allegations of bias and improper enquiry by the disciplinary authorities.
3. Requirement for a fresh enquiry into the petitioner's complaint.

Detailed Analysis:

Validity of the Board of Discipline's Decision:
The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the 38th meeting of the Board of Discipline, which accepted the prima facie opinion of the Director Discipline and closed the case against the 4th respondent. The petitioner argued that the decision was made without proper enquiry and was biased. The court noted that the enquiry report did not provide sufficient reasons or findings to support the closure of the complaint, merely stating that the complaint was made without evidence.

Allegations of Bias and Improper Enquiry:
The petitioner alleged that the disciplinary authorities acted with mala fide intentions and institutional bias. The petitioner contended that his complaint was closed without proper enquiry, while a complaint against him resulted in punishment. The court observed that the enquiry report lacked detailed findings and reasons, which are crucial for a fair enquiry. The court emphasized that reasons are the "live link" for forming an opinion and that the enquiry must consider all documents and evidence thoroughly.

Requirement for a Fresh Enquiry:
The court concluded that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not enquired into properly and in accordance with established legal principles. The court ordered the case to be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh enquiry. The Disciplinary Committee was directed to follow proper procedures, provide reasons and specific findings, and consider all allegations, documents, and evidence impartially. The court set a four-month deadline for the completion of the fresh enquiry and directed both parties to cooperate and submit any additional evidence if necessary.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned decision of the Board of Discipline dated 30.10.2013 and all consequential proceedings. It directed the Disciplinary Committee to conduct a fresh enquiry, ensuring a fair and impartial process. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.