Disciplinary inquiry may proceed despite criminal case when proceedings are distinct; misconduct finding upheld on documentary evidence.

Pendency of criminal proceedings did not bar a disciplinary inquiry under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, because the two proceedings were distinct. The High Court found that the respondent had been repeatedly given s to participate and defend himself, but had sought adjournments and avoided the inquiry. On the documentary and oral evidence, including vouchers, challans and written sheets, the finding of other misconduct was supported and neither unfairness nor perversity in the inquiry process was shown. The disciplinary finding was affirmed, and the respondent was directed to be removed from membership for five years.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was guilty of other misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and, if so, what punishment should follow.

Analysis: The disciplinary record showed repeated opportunities given to the respondent to participate in the inquiry and to file his defence, yet he frequently sought adjournments and avoided the proceedings. The inquiry committee examined oral and documentary material, including vouchers, challans and written sheets, and recorded that the respondent had claimed reimbursement against purported tax payments while only the last digits were deposited. The High Court found no specific breach of the Regulations, no material to show that the inquiry was unfair, and no basis to treat the findings as perverse. The pendency of criminal proceedings did not prevent the disciplinary inquiry from proceeding, as both proceedings were distinct.

Conclusion: The respondent was held guilty of other misconduct, and the finding of the disciplinary committee and the Council was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The reference succeeded in confirming disciplinary liability, and the respondent was directed to suffer removal from membership for five years.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of criminal proceedings does not bar a disciplinary inquiry where the two proceedings are distinct, and a disciplinary finding based on cogent documentary and oral evidence will not be interfered with absent perversity or violation of mandatory procedure.

---