Disciplinary power for other misconduct extends to forged tax and loan documents, justifying removal from membership.

The Institute's disciplinary power extends beyond scheduled professional misconduct to other dishonourable or infamous conduct, so a member may be proceeded against even if he disputes being in practice or raises a membership objection. On the facts, the respondent held himself out as a chartered accountant and the proceedings were validly initiated. Forged income-tax return acknowledgements and false loan papers, coupled with dishonesty and conduct inconsistent with professional ethics, constituted other misconduct. The Court held the original penalty inadequate and directed removal from membership for five years.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a member of the Institute could be proceeded against for other misconduct notwithstanding the plea that he was not in practice or was not a member during the relevant period; (ii) whether the respondent's conduct in submitting or causing to be submitted forged income-tax return documents and false loan-related papers constituted other misconduct warranting removal from membership, and for what period.

Issue (i): whether a member of the Institute could be proceeded against for other misconduct notwithstanding the plea that he was not in practice or was not a member during the relevant period

Analysis: The statutory scheme preserves the Council's power to inquire into conduct not confined to scheduled professional misconduct. A member is deemed to be in practice where he engages in accountancy services, offers such services, or holds himself out to the public as an accountant. On the facts, the respondent's visiting card and loan documents showed that he held himself out as a chartered accountant, and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated when he was again on the rolls of the Institute. The plea that the Council lacked jurisdiction was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The Council had jurisdiction to proceed against the respondent for other misconduct.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent's conduct in submitting or causing to be submitted forged income-tax return documents and false loan-related papers constituted other misconduct warranting removal from membership, and for what period

Analysis: The evidence showed that the loan was obtained on the strength of income-tax return acknowledgements for several years, that the respondent admitted signatures on the loan papers, and that his explanation that a DSA had filled up the forms was not accepted. The Court treated forgery, dishonesty, and conduct contrary to professional ethics as wholly inconsistent with the standards expected of chartered accountants. It also held that the scheduled definition of professional misconduct does not exhaust the Council's disciplinary power, and that conduct dishonourable or infamous in character may amount to other misconduct. In view of the seriousness of the misconduct, the punishment recommended by the Council was considered inadequate.

Conclusion: The respondent was guilty of other misconduct and was directed to be removed from membership for five years.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by sustaining the finding of misconduct and enhancing the disciplinary penalty to five years' removal from membership.

Ratio Decidendi: The disciplinary power of the Institute extends beyond scheduled professional misconduct to any dishonourable or infamous conduct of a member, and conduct involving forgery or dishonesty is sufficient to justify severe disciplinary action, including removal from membership.

---