9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tood prior to the amendment w.e.f. 17th November, 2006, in pursuance to the complaint dated 6th February, 2002 of the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG), the petitioner Institute has made this Reference under Section 21(5) of the Act, forwarding the case to this Court with its recommendation of removal of name of the respondent no.1 from the Register of Members for a period of one month. 2. Notice of this petition was issued. The respondent no.1 is reported to be served with a dasti notice on 1st September, 2014; however none appeared on his behalf on 10th November, 2014, 2nd March, 2015 and 6th April, 2015. We as such, on 6th April, 2015, heard the counsel for the petitioner and reserved judgment. 3. The CAG in it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no.1 with respect to the second charge of claiming Rs. 15,000/- towards Consultancy Charges paid to one Dr. Kamal Gupta, without prior consent of CCI; and, (iii) as far as the third charge relating to claim by the respondent no.1 of AC first class rail fare for travel, while actually travelling in a lower class during the return journey was concerned, though there was a casualness in filing claim, however there was an ingredient of wrongly justifying the mistake committed by claiming an unentitled amount and which conduct of the respondent no.1 was not bona fide; the Disciplinary Committee thus held the respondent no.1 guilty of 'other misconduct' as aforesaid on the said charge 7. The respondent no.1 represented against the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent no.1 was in justifying the said casual and unintentional mistake. The Council also did not consider the representation dated 19th June, 2012 of the respondent no.1 that such act too was not intentional and there was no intention to deceive CCI and in fact much more amount than the fare of first AC was spent by him in travel and that the complaint in this regard against him was revengeful and vindictive on account of adverse comment made by him in the Audit Report. The proceedings of the Council of the petitioner Institute in which the recommendation for removal of name of respondent No.1 from Register of members for one month does not give us any inkling as to why the lesser punishments of reprimand or removal of name for sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Council to consider the recommendation in the light of the report of the Disciplinary Committee and the representation of the respondent no.1 thereagainst. We choose the former simply for the reason that the matter has already been pending for the last more than ten years and we feel that it need not be prolonged any further.
12. We accordingly dispose of this Reference by modifying the punishment for the misconduct of which the respondent no.1 has been found guilty from that of removal of name from the Register of Members for a period of one month as recommended by the Council of the petitioner institute to that of reprimand. The requisite reprimand be issued in accordance with law.
The Reference is disposed of.
No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
