Professional misconduct requires strict proof in disciplinary proceedings; suspicion and inadequate material cannot establish guilt.

Disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 require proof by admissible and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt because the inquiry is quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal in character. The Court held that the mere allegation that a respondent chartered accountant allowed an articled clerk to take outside employment, without prior Council permission, was insufficient where the outside employment was not established by positive proof and the supporting statement was not properly proved. The material also failed to show knowledge or connivance by the respondent. The respondent was therefore held not guilty of professional misconduct.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-chartered accountant was guilty of professional misconduct for allowing his articled clerk to engage in other employment during the period of articles without prior permission of the Council.

Analysis: The disciplinary jurisdiction under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 was held to be wide, but the charge of misconduct had still to be proved by legal and satisfactory evidence. The Court treated the inquiry as quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal in character, so the authority making the charge bore the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the evidence, the alleged outside employment of the articled clerk was not established by positive and admissible proof, the supporting statement of the insurance company custodian was not properly proved, and the material did not satisfactorily establish that the respondent had knowledge of, or connived at, any such employment.

Conclusion: The respondent was not guilty of professional misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the allegation must be proved by admissible and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and knowledge or connivance cannot be inferred from suspicion or inadequate material.

---