No fixed time limit for disciplinary inquiry under Rule 9; challenge to delay in misconduct proceedings failed.

Rule 9 of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 does not prescribe any fixed period for completing disciplinary proceedings. Where the complaint had already advanced beyond the Rule 8 stage and the Director (Discipline) had examined the material and forwarded the matter for the next stage, the Court found no undue delay and no legal basis to require priority over other pending complaints. It also noted that the petitioner lacked a direct interest in alleged misconduct concerning a third-party firm. The writ petition was therefore held unmerited and dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could insist that the disciplinary enquiry on its complaint be completed within a fixed period of 14 weeks under Rule 9 of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, and whether the petition was otherwise maintainable in the facts.

Analysis: Rule 9 of the Rules does not prescribe any time frame for completion of the disciplinary process. The complaint had already progressed through the Rule 8 stage and the Director (Discipline) had completed the examination of the material and forwarded the matter to the next stage. In these circumstances, there was no undue delay and no legal basis for the petitioner to demand precedence over other pending complaints. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not appear to have any direct interest in the alleged misconduct involving a third party firm of chartered accountants.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable right to compel completion of the disciplinary process within 14 weeks, and the writ petition was unmerited.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pace of the disciplinary proceedings failed, and the petition was dismissed with costs.

---