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. Gyan Prakash Agarwal (High Court of Delhi)

Chart. A. Ref 1/2014

Date: 19th January 2017

Key Takeaways:

1. The court interpreted Section 21D of the Chartered Accountants Act to include both complaints and information pending before the Council.

2. Long-pending disciplinary cases can be viewed more leniently, considering the stress on the accused.

3. Minor discrepancies in travel claims, without intent to cheat, may not warrant severe penalties.

Issue:

Should the chartered accountant be penalized for claiming AC First Class fare while traveling in AC Second Class, and how should the transitional provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act be applied in this case?

Facts:

1. On February 6, 2002, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) complained to ICAI about alleged misconduct by M/s Megha & Associates while auditing Cotton Corporation of India for 2000-01.

2. After correspondence, the Council referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee in August 2008.

3. The Disciplinary Committee, in its report dated August 1, 2011, found the respondent guilty of claiming AC First Class fare but traveling in a lower class during the return journey.

4. The Committee recommended removing the respondent's name from the Register of Members for one month.

5. The case dragged on for 14 years before reaching its conclusion.

Arguments:

The judgment doesn't explicitly state the arguments from both sides. However, we can infer:

Petitioner (ICAI):

- The respondent committed misconduct by claiming a higher fare than actually used.

- The penalty of one month's removal from the register is appropriate.

Respondent (Gyan Prakash Agarwal):

- The discrepancy in travel claims was due to unavailability of AC First Class seats and not intentional misconduct.

- The penalty is disproportionate to the nature of the error.

Key Legal Precedents:

1. 2011 (126) DRJ 159: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors vs. P. Rama Krishna & Anr.

  - This case interpreted Section 21D of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

  - It held that "complaints" in Section 21D include information cases pending before the Council on November 17, 2006.

2. Section 21D of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (Transitional Provisions)

  - This section governs how pending cases should be treated after the 2006 amendment to the Act.

Judgment:

1. The court held that the reference was maintainable under the unamended Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

2. The court found the proposed penalty of one month's removal from the register disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong.

3. Considering the case's 14-year duration and the unintentional nature of the error, the court dropped the proceedings without imposing any penalty.

4. The respondent was warned to be more careful in the future.

FAQs:

1. Q: Why did the court decide not to impose any penalty?

  A: The court considered the unintentional nature of the error, the disproportionate nature of the proposed penalty, and the 14-year duration of the proceedings.

2. Q: What is the significance of Section 21D in this case?

  A: Section 21D determined whether the case should be governed by the amended or unamended Chartered Accountants Act, which could affect the proceedings and potential penalties.

3. Q: How does this judgment impact similar cases in the future?

  A: It suggests that courts may take a more lenient view on minor discrepancies, especially in long-pending cases, and emphasizes the importance of considering the intent behind actions.

4. Q: What lesson can chartered accountants learn from this case?

  A: While the court was lenient in this case, it's crucial for professionals to be meticulous in their claims and documentation to avoid even unintentional discrepancies.

5. Q: How might this case affect the disciplinary processes of professional bodies?

  A: It may encourage professional bodies to resolve disciplinary matters more quickly and to consider the proportionality of penalties in relation to the nature of the misconduct.

1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. The issue raised is squarely covered in favour of petitioner as per the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported as 2011 (126) DRJ 159: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors vs. P. Rama Krishna & Anr.

3. The transitional provision, being Section 21D, when on November 17, 2016 the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 was amended has been interpreted by the Division Bench.

4. Section 21D reads as under:-

“D. Transitional Provisions.

All complaints pending before the Council or any inquiry initiated by the Disciplinary Committee or any reference or appeal made to a High Court prior to the commencement of the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of this Act, as if this Act had not been amended by the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006.”

5. In para 37, the Division Bench held as under:- “37. The intention of the legislation in enacting Section 21D of the CA Act, 1949 is to draw out or make a distinction between the cases pending before the Council on a complaint or on information, and ensure that the amended provisions would apply to a fresh complaint or information and the unamended Act will apply to the pending complaints or information. It is inconceivable and there is no good reason or cause why distinction should be made between „information‟ and „complaint‟ for the purpose of deciding whether the amended or unamended provision would apply. The legislation intent behind incorporating Section 21D is to make the legal position beyond doubt or cavil so that there is no dispute. Even under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the position is the same. In these circumstances, we would prefer the interpretation placed by the appellant on the word „complaint‟ as used in Section 21D. The word complaint includes information cases which were pending before the Council on 17th November, 2006. In the facts of the present matter as discussed above, proceedings or complaint in the form of information was pending before the Council on 17th November, 2006 and accordingly the unamended provisions will apply.”

6. Suffice it to highlight that the word ‘complaints’ in Section 21D was read to include information as well.

7. Meaning thereby if information pertaining to an alleged misconduct was pending before the Council, further proceedings have to continue as per the unamended Act.

8. The facts we need to note in the instant case are that a complaint was received by the Council on November 06, 2002. Correspondences ensued between the council and Megha & Associates, the firm of Chartered Accountants. Clarifications sought not being granted, the matter was treated as information and in accordance with regulation 12(6) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations 1988, a letter was issued by the Council on December 30, 2005 calling upon the firm of chartered accountants to disclose the name of the members answerable to the charges. The respondent submitted his written statement of defences on July 25, 2006 i.e. much before the Act was amended on November 17, 2006.

9. We accordingly hold the reference to be maintainable for the reason that matter would have to be decided as per the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 and not as amended by the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006.

10. The application is dismissed.

1. On February 06, 2002 the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) made a complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants alleging that for the year 2000-01 the Joint Statutory Auditors of Cotton Corporation of India : M/s Megha & Associates had committed misconduct while performing duties as the auditors of Cotton Corporation of India (CCI).

2. After correspondence with the firm the Council of the petitioner at the meeting held on 28th and 29th August, 2008 referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for inquiry.

3. In its report dated August 01, 2011 the Disciplinary Committee absolved the respondent, who was in charge of the audit, of the first and the second misconduct alleged. But held him guilty of the third misconduct, which was of claiming AC First Class fare for rail travel, and as a matter of fact travelling in a lower class during the return journey.

4. The Disciplinary Committee of the Council at the meeting held on 18th and 19th June, 2012 recommended removal of the name of the respondent from the Register of Members for one month. Reference has been made to this Court with the proposed penalty.

5. Having perused the report of the Disciplinary Committee we find that as per the Committee the respondent was entitled to AC First Class fare. He had travelled by AC Second Class due to seat in the AC First Class not being available for the return journey. The Disciplinary Committee itself noted that it was a case of casualness and not an act done with an intention to cheat. The Disciplinary Committee has noted that the travel was at a short notice and in a rush season.

6. In our opinion the proposed penalty would be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong and especially keeping in view that there is no evidence that the respondent was paid for travel by AC First Class. The evidence is only to the effect that he travelled by AC Second Class but raised a bill for travel by AC First Class.

7. Though it may be a case where penalty of reprimand would suffice, but we refrain from imposing any penalty for the reason proceedings have dragged on for fourteen years and the sword of damocles has remained hung over the respondent.

8. Warning the respondent to be more careful in future we answer the Reference by accepting the report of the Disciplinary Committee and dropping the proceedings against the respondent without imposing any penalty.

9. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)

JUDGE

(YOGESH KHANNA)

JUDGE

JANUARY 19, 2017