Professional negligence in issuing a solvency certificate was not established, though the disciplinary record still led to a reprimand.

A solvency certificate issued on the basis of documents produced by the concerned person was not treated as professional negligence where there was no material showing lack of precaution or deliberate lapse, and the omission of property particulars in the certificate did not, on those facts, establish misconduct, particularly since the excise department had accepted the certificate at the relevant time. The disciplinary record nevertheless noted a plea of guilt by the respondent, and a reprimand was imposed on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was guilty of professional negligence or misconduct in issuing the solvency certificate, and what disciplinary consequence should follow.

Analysis: The respondent had issued the solvency certificate on the basis of documents produced by the concerned person, and there was no material to show that he acted without precaution or with any deliberate lapse. The absence of particulars of the properties in the certificate did not, on the facts, establish professional negligence, especially when the certificate had been accepted by the excise department at the relevant time. At the same time, the record of the disciplinary committee noted that the respondent had pleaded guilty to the charges.

Conclusion: The respondent was not held guilty of professional negligence on the complaint, but a reprimand was issued on the basis of the disciplinary record.

---