Parallel disciplinary and criminal proceedings may continue where charges differ and no serious prejudice to defence is shown.

Criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 may proceed simultaneously, and a stay is justified only in exceptional cases where the charges are identical or substantially similar, the criminal case is grave, and complicated questions of law and fact would seriously prejudice the defence. On the facts, the disciplinary allegations of professional negligence, lack of due diligence, and auditing-standard breaches were distinct from the criminal allegations of conspiracy, cheating, and fraud. The Court also rejected the self-incrimination objection under Article 20(3). The disciplinary enquiry was therefore allowed to continue alongside the criminal trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 should be stayed pending criminal prosecution on the ground that the charges and evidence were substantially similar and that continuation would prejudice the defence, and whether requiring participation in the disciplinary enquiry would violate the right against self-incrimination.

Analysis: The governing principle is that criminal prosecution and departmental or disciplinary proceedings may proceed simultaneously. Stay of disciplinary proceedings is an exception and is justified only where the charges are identical or substantially similar, the criminal case is grave, and the matter involves complicated questions of law and fact so that continuation would seriously prejudice the defence in the criminal trial. The Court found that the disciplinary charges concerned professional negligence, failure to exercise due diligence, and violation of auditing standards, whereas the criminal case alleged conspiracy, cheating, and fraud. The scope, object, and standard of proof in the two proceedings were distinct, and the appellants had not shown that the criminal case involved such complicated questions of law and fact as to warrant suspension of the disciplinary process. The plea based on Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India was also rejected.

Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings were not liable to be stayed and could lawfully continue alongside the criminal trial, with adequate opportunity being afforded to the appellants.

---