Quorum in multi-member statutory bodies is not defeated by recusal where no minimum quorum is prescribed under the governing statute.

A five-member Appellate Authority under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 is not rendered inquorate by the recusal of one member, because the Act prescribes no minimum quorum. Recusal in a particular matter does not amount to resignation, removal, or vacancy, and a recused member remains part of the Authority for other matters. The statute also does not permit ad hoc reconstitution of the body for one appeal. Applying the principle that a multi-member body without a fixed quorum may act through the majority of competent members, and the doctrine of necessity, the remaining four members may validly hear and decide the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether recusal of one member of the five-member Appellate Authority under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 rendered the Authority without quorum and unable to hear and decide the appeal.

Analysis: Section 22A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 constitutes the Appellate Authority as a five-member body, but the Act does not prescribe any minimum quorum. Section 22F deals with resignation and removal of members and shows that recusal in a particular matter does not amount to cessation of office or creation of a vacancy. A recused member continues to remain part of the Authority for other matters, and the statute does not permit ad hoc reconstitution of the body for a particular appeal. Applying the settled principle that, where a statute vests decision-making in a body without fixing quorum, the matter can be validly decided by the majority of the members who are competent to participate, the temporary recusal of one member does not paralyse the Authority. The Court also applied the doctrine of necessity to avoid a stalemate in statutory adjudication.

Conclusion: The objection of lack of quorum failed. The Appellate Authority of four members was competent to hear and decide the appeal notwithstanding the recusal of one member, and the challenge to the impugned order was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit and the order rejecting the plea of want of quorum was upheld, leaving the disciplinary appeal to proceed before the existing Appellate Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute constituting a multi-member adjudicatory body does not prescribe a minimum quorum, the recusal of one member in a particular case does not invalidate the proceedings if the remaining competent members form the majority and can validly decide the matter.

---