Proportionality in disciplinary punishment requires consistency with comparable cases, leading to reduction of an excessive professional penalty.

In disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct in certifying statutory forms, the appellate authority held that punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct and consistent with penalties imposed in comparable cases. As the challenge was confined to the severity of punishment and not the finding of misconduct, the authority compared similar matters and found removal from membership with a fine excessively harsh. Exercising appellate powers, it reduced the penalty to reprimand with a fine, while providing that failure to pay would result in temporary removal from membership.

---

---

Issues: Quantum of punishment for professional misconduct in certifying statutory forms.

Analysis: The Appellant did not press the challenge to the finding of professional misconduct and confined the appeal to the severity of punishment. The Authority compared the punishment imposed with penalties awarded in similar matters involving certification of forms and found that the impugned punishment of removal from membership and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 was disproportionately harsh. Exercising appellate powers under the Act, the Authority held that consistency and fairness required reduction of the penalty.

Conclusion: The punishment was reduced to reprimand and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with a default consequence of removal from membership for one month if the fine was not paid within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings, the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct and consistent with penalties imposed in comparable cases, and an appellate authority may interfere where the penalty is found excessive or harsh.

---