9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit, Bhopal Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). It is stated that the Petitioner had been working as a Tax Consultant with the Society. During period between 2013 and 2015, the Society issued various cheques amounting to Rs. 1.90 crores to the Petitioner herein in his professional capacity for depositing tax with the Statutory Authorities. It is alleged in the complaint that instead of depositing the said tax amount with the concerned Statutory Authorities, the Petitioner herein forged the cheques and transferred Rs. 1.90 crores into his and his wife's bank account. 3. It is stated that on becoming aware about the commission of the offence, the Society filed an FIR, being FIR No. 1024/2015, dated 22.12.2015, registered at Police Station Gobindpura for offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC. It is stated that in terms of Rule 19 (1) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Conduct Rules'), a copy of the complaint was forwarded to the Petitioner herein vide letter dated 10.02.2017 with a request to send his written stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plinary Directorate that the Petitioner is guilty of professional misconduct and has decided to proceed further under Chapter V of the Conduct Rules. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 18 of the Conduct Rules, a copy of the prima facie opinion of the Disciplinary Directorate, along with a copy of the documents relied upon by the Disciplinary Directorate was forwarded to the Petitioner and the Petitioner was directed to give his reply. 7. Hearings were conducted on 29.01.2021 and 25.06.2021. Vide Order dated 10.10.2022, the Disciplinary Committee found that the Petitioner was associated with the Society even after 2013 and that the amount of Rs. 2.60 crores had been remitted to his and his family members' account in different trenches by way of 12 cheques. Committee held it was surprised to know that despite being a Chartered Accountant neither the Petitioner herein nor his family members had bothered to check as to how these amounts were reflected in their bank accounts. The Committee, therefore, held that the Petitioner was guilty of Professional and/or Other Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (2) of Part-IV of the First Schedule and Item (4) of Part II of Second Schedule t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaning of Clause (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule and Clause (4) of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Act, however, he has submitted that the punishment awarded, by order dated 26.08.2022, is too harsh and prayed for reduction in the quantum of punishment." 12. The only argument, therefore, raised before the Appellate Authority was that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him and more so because the entire money has been returned back to the Society. 13. The role and function of a Chartered Accountant (CA) is extremely important in the functioning of any organization. Given the nature of duties discharged by a CA, they enjoy the full faith and trust of all parties, and thus, the profession of Chartered Accountancy requires utmost sincerity, with no place for dishonesty. The Conduct Rules indicate that Chartered Accountants must perform their jobs with integrity and it also indicates zero tolerance towards the CA if dishonesty is proved. 14. The present case is a classic case of rank dishonesty on the part of the Petitioner herein. Material on record indicates that even after the Petitioner herein stopped being the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Committee are tentative and the same are not recorded as findings. It is only the Council which is empowered to find out whether the member is guilty of misconduct. If on receipt of the report, the Council finds that the member is not guilty of misconduct, Section 21(2) requires that it shall record its finding accordingly and direct that the proceedings shall be filed or the complaint shall be dismissed. On the other hand, if the Council finds that the member is guilty of misconduct, Section 21(3) requires it to record a finding accordingly and to proceed in the manner laid down in the succeeding sub-sections. The findings by the Council constitute the determinative decision as to the guilt of the member and because it is determinative in character, the Act requires it to be recorded. Thus, the Council has to determine that a member is guilty of misconduct and the task of recording of the findings has been specifically assigned to the Council. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 mandates that where a member of the Institute has been guilty of professional misconduct specified in the First Schedule of the Act, the Council shall afford to such member an opportunity of being heard before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the code linquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable." 21. The Petitioner is guilty of a very serious misconduct that has the ability to shake the faith of persons in the profession of Chartered Accountancy and the larger Institute of Chartere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
