Chartered Accountant Penalized for Misconduct in Audit Disclosure

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Devinder Kumar Jain (High Court of Delhi)

CHAT.A.REF 1/2011

Date: 8th August 2016

Key Takeaways

• The case highlights the importance of confidentiality in the auditing profession.
• The court found the respondent guilty of disclosing privileged information, which is a breach of professional conduct.
• The decision underscores the balance between professional integrity and the provocations that professionals might face.
• The penalty imposed was a reprimand, considering the time elapsed since the incident.

Issue

Did the respondent, a Chartered Accountant, commit professional misconduct by disclosing confidential information obtained during an audit?

Facts

• The respondent was accused of delaying an audit and disclosing confidential information.
• The audit involved a company where the respondent’s father-in-law was a director.
• The Disciplinary Committee absolved the respondent of delaying the audit and conflict of interest but found him guilty of disclosing confidential information.
• The company had also sent communications to authorities, which the respondent mirrored in his response.

Arguments

• For the Petitioner: The respondent misused his position by disclosing confidential information, which is against the professional standards set by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
• For the Respondent: The respondent argued that his actions were a response to the company’s own disclosures to authorities, and he was merely defending himself.

Key Legal Precedents

• The case referenced Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which defines professional misconduct.
• The court emphasized the standard of conduct expected from Chartered Accountants, focusing on honesty and reasonableness.

Judgement

The court found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct for disclosing confidential information. However, considering the circumstances and the time elapsed, the court decided that a reprimand was an appropriate penalty. The decision was made to ensure justice while acknowledging the provocations faced by the respondent.

FAQs

Q: What was the main misconduct in this case?

A: The main misconduct was the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information obtained during an audit.

Q: Why was the penalty only a reprimand?

A: The court considered the time elapsed since the incident and the provocations from the company, deciding that a reprimand was sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

Q: What does this case mean for Chartered Accountants?

A: It reinforces the importance of maintaining confidentiality and professional integrity, even when provoked by external parties.

1. Enquiry into misconduct committed by the respondent pertained to the following three categories:-

(i) The respondent deliberately delayed the audit of the company due to which several difficulties were faced by the company.

(ii) The respondent did the audit of the company despite being aware that his father-in-law was the Director in the company and mis-utilised his position.

(iii) The respondent disclosed the confidential/privilege information to various authorities, acquired by him during the course of audit.

2. The Committee constituted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants absolved the respondent of the first and second limb of the misconduct. The respondent was held guilty of the third limb of the misconduct i.e. of disclosing confidential/privilege information to various authorities acquired by him during the course of audit. Reference has been made to this Court proposing a penalty of suspending the licence for a period of two months.

3. We have perused the evidence led before the Disciplinary Committee and would find that the company M/s KEW Precision Parts Private Limited did not co-operate with the respondent and this delayed the audit. The respondent has rightly been absolved of the first limb of the misconduct alleged. This sets the setting for the third limb of the misconduct held proved.

4. At page 229 of the record submitted to us is a letter addressed by the company to the respondent making allegations against him and copies thereof was sent to the Registrar of Companies and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

5. The company had no business to mark the copy of the said communication dated May 22, 2004 to the Registrar of Companies and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the reason the contents of the communication had no concern with the Registrar of Companies or the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

6. The reply dated May 28, 2004 to the said letter dated May 22, 2004 was marked by the respondent to the Commissioner of Income Tax and to the Registrar of Companies.

7. We find justification in the stand taken by the respondent that he did so on account of the fact that the company sent copy of its communication dated May 22, 2004 to the said authorities. The respondent additionally marked a copy of his letter dated May 28, 2004 to the shareholders of the company. To this extent we find no wrong.

8. But the wrong committed is annexing Annexure-1 to Annexure-5 to the reply in which the respondent, with respect to information which he had gathered as an auditor of the company for the previous years, shared the same pointing out gross violation of the various legal provisions in the running of the company.

9. Now, as a Chartered Accountant the respondent ought to have known that he should not have used privilege information received by him to fight the battle with the company and pass on privilege information received to the third parties. Professional misconduct has been defined in Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Misconduct implies failure to act honestly and reasonably either according to the ordinary and natural standard or according to the standard of a particular profession. Betrayal of a trust would be a conduct which is unbecoming of a profession. Thus in the aforesaid background it is apparent that respondent is clearly guilty of professional misconduct.

10. But the company also had to share the blame by trying to defame the respondent. The respondent retaliated.

11. He ought not to have retaliated because as a Chartered Accountant he is bound by the rules to maintain professional good conduct.

12. Given the backdrop the appropriate penalty would be a reprimand. We take note of the fact that the incident took place more than a decade back. The reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act,1949 is accordingly disposed of imposing a penalty of reprimand upon the respondent which would meet the ends of justice.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

AUGUST 08, 2016