Transitional disciplinary law under the unamended Chartered Accountants Act applied to pending matters, and no penalty was imposed.

Section 21D was read to preserve pending complaints and pending information cases before the Council, so disciplinary proceedings already underway continued under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 as it stood before amendment. The transitional language was construed broadly, with support drawn from the General Clauses Act, and the reference was therefore maintainable under the unamended regime. On the misconduct concerning travel claims, the lapse was treated as casual rather than deliberate, the claimed entitlement was substantially supported, the return journey explanation was accepted, and the long pendency was considered. No penalty was imposed because punishment was found disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the proceedings were to be governed by the unamended Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 by virtue of the transitional provision in Section 21D; and (ii) whether any penalty was warranted for the proved misconduct in relation to travel claims.

Issue (i): whether the proceedings were to be governed by the unamended Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 by virtue of the transitional provision in Section 21D

Analysis: Section 21D was construed to protect pending complaints and, on the same reasoning, information cases that were already before the Council when the amendment came into force. A pending matter was treated as continuing under the unamended regime, and the expression used in the transitional provision was read broadly in the light of the legal position under the General Clauses Act as well.

Conclusion: The reference was maintainable and was required to be decided under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 as it stood before amendment.

Issue (ii): whether any penalty was warranted for the proved misconduct in relation to travel claims

Analysis: The proved lapse was treated as a case of casualness rather than deliberate cheating. The claimed travel entitlement was supported in substance, the lower class travel on return was explained by non-availability of the higher class, and the long pendency of the matter was also taken into account. On that footing, the proposed punishment was found to be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

Conclusion: No penalty was imposed and the proceedings were dropped against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary reference was answered in the respondent's favour by holding the matter to be governed by the unamended law and by declining to impose any penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A transitional provision protecting pending complaints will be construed to include pending information cases where the legislative intent is to preserve the pre-amendment regime, and disciplinary punishment must be proportionate to the proved misconduct.

---