Professional misconduct requires conduct linked to chartered accountant duties, not acts done only as arbitrator or mediator.

Professional misconduct under Clause 7 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 requires the impugned act or omission to arise from the professional duties of a chartered accountant. Where the respondent acted as an arbitrator or mediator under the parties' arrangement, those functions were not exclusive to a chartered accountant and could be performed by any person. Even if the conduct in that role was alleged to be unfair, it was not connected with the discharge of chartered accountant duties. The respondent was therefore not guilty of professional misconduct and no disciplinary action was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent could be held guilty of professional misconduct under Clause 7 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for acts done while acting as an arbitrator or mediator rather than in the course of duties as a chartered accountant.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 21 and 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 treats professional misconduct as conduct falling within the Schedules. For liability under Clause 7 of Part I of the Second Schedule, the impugned act or omission must relate to the professional duties of a chartered accountant. The respondent's role, as accepted on the record, was that of an arbitrator or mediator appointed by the parties under their arrangement. Such duties were not exclusive to a chartered accountant and could be performed by any person. Even if the respondent had not acted fairly in that role, the alleged breach was not connected with the performance of professional duties as a chartered accountant.

Conclusion: The respondent was not guilty of professional misconduct under Clause 7 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and no disciplinary action was called for.

---