Professional misconduct review upheld where trustee dispute and unsupported audit allegations did not justify interference under Article 226.

Disciplinary scrutiny of an auditor's appointment turned on whether internal trustee disputes vitiated the resolution and whether the member's conduct amounted to professional misconduct. The disciplinary body upheld reliance on the resolution, noting that the earlier removal resolution lacked quorum and the later restoring resolution had not been stayed, so no misconduct arose from accepting the assignment. It also found no proof that the member performed a prohibited statutory audit; the only established act was signing Form 10B for the trust's tax benefit. Applying the limited scope of Article 226 review, the court found no perversity or irrationality and sustained the disciplinary orders, dismissing the writ petition with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the disciplinary finding that the appointment of the auditor was not vitiated by the internal dispute among trustees and the challenged resolution could be relied upon, (ii) whether the auditor's conduct in relation to internal audit and the subsequent audit assignment amounted to professional misconduct, and (iii) whether the impugned disciplinary orders warranted interference in writ jurisdiction on the ground of perversity or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Issue (i): whether the disciplinary finding that the appointment of the auditor was not vitiated by the internal dispute among trustees and the challenged resolution could be relied upon

Analysis: The scope of disciplinary scrutiny was confined to whether the member had acted improperly in accepting the assignment pursuant to a resolution under which a trustee, whose participation was questioned, had been treated as continuing in office. The validity of the internal resolution among trustees was not the issue before the disciplinary body. The record showed that the earlier removal resolution had been passed without the required quorum and that the subsequent resolution restoring the trustee had not been stayed by any superior court.

Conclusion: The finding was upheld and no misconduct was made out on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the auditor's conduct in relation to internal audit and the subsequent audit assignment amounted to professional misconduct

Analysis: The Code of Ethics does not permit a statutory auditor to act as an internal auditor where independence would be compromised, but the material on record did not establish that the member had, in fact, performed a prohibited statutory audit of the trust in the sense alleged. The trust was not a company, the alleged report was not proved as a statutory audit report, and the only established conduct was signing Form 10B to enable the trust to claim the benefit under the income-tax provisions. The allegation that he acted as a statutory auditor in breach of the earlier auditor's role was not substantiated by evidence.

Conclusion: No professional misconduct on this count was established.

Issue (iii): whether the impugned disciplinary orders warranted interference in writ jurisdiction on the ground of perversity or Wednesbury unreasonableness

Analysis: Interference under Article 226 is limited, and a disciplinary finding can be disturbed only if it is shown to be perverse, unreasonable, or unsupported by material. The complaint mechanism under the Chartered Accountants Act is disciplinary in nature, and the complainant has no appeal as of right against an order exonerating the member. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity, perversity, or irrationality in the disciplinary conclusions.

Conclusion: No ground for writ interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary orders were sustained and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary review under Article 226, a finding of professional misconduct will not be interfered with unless it is shown to be perverse or irrational on the material before the authority, and a complainant cannot use writ jurisdiction to reopen unresolved internal disputes or unsupported allegations of misconduct.

---