Natural justice and professional misconduct in disciplinary proceedings: fair hearing confirmed and penalty upheld for gross negligence.

Fair hearing on penalty was found to have been afforded because the petitioner received the findings, was invited to file a written representation, and was given personal hearing, but did not avail either opportunity despite further time being granted; the natural justice challenge therefore failed. Findings of professional misconduct were also sustained because the petitioner admitted multiple audit and financial statement errors, and failure to exercise due diligence and gross negligence fell within the misconduct provision applicable to practising Chartered Accountants. The Court found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or disproportionality in the penalty of removal from the register for one year, and the disciplinary action was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing on the question of penalty; (ii) Whether the findings of professional misconduct based on lack of due diligence and gross negligence, and the punishment of removal from the register for one year, called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing on the question of penalty.

Analysis: The petitioner had been supplied the findings, was invited to make a written representation, and was also given an opportunity of personal hearing. The record showed that further time had already been granted, but the petitioner neither availed the hearing nor submitted a written response on penalty despite express intimation that the authority would proceed if he failed to respond. In such circumstances, the requirement of fair hearing was satisfied and the plea of denial of natural justice could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings of professional misconduct based on lack of due diligence and gross negligence, and the punishment of removal from the register for one year, called for interference.

Analysis: The petitioner admitted multiple errors and discrepancies in the audit and financial statements, including incorrect quantitative figures and improper disclosure of inter-branch transfers. Clause (7) of Part-I of the Second Schedule treated failure to exercise due diligence and gross negligence in professional duties as misconduct. The disciplinary and appellate authorities had examined the material, recorded reasons, and concluded that the petitioner, as a practising Chartered Accountant, had failed to discharge the expected standard of care. The Court declined to reappreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction and found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or disproportionality in the penalty.

Conclusion: The findings of misconduct and the punishment were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be without merit, and the impugned disciplinary action remained undisturbed.

---