77-year-old chartered accountant escapes removal from practice due to 19-year delay in disciplinary proceedings

The Bombay HC disposed of a professional misconduct reference against a 77-year-old chartered accountant accused of fabricating bogus payment challans and misappropriating client funds. Despite the ICAI finding the CA guilty and recommending one-year removal from practice, the HC rejected the recommendation due to inordinate 19-year delay in completing disciplinary proceedings without satisfactory explanation from ICAI. The court noted the complaint was filed 10-12 years after the incident, with ICAI taking 14 years to reach guilt findings and additional years for procedural compliance. Citing Supreme Court precedent in State of Madhya Pradesh v Bani Singh regarding unfairness of prolonged proceedings, the HC found no substantial justification for punishment given the delay and respondent's otherwise clean professional record.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of Professional Misconduct
2. Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings
3. Delay in Proceedings
4. Acquittal in Criminal Case
5. Council's Recommendation and Judicial Review

Summary:

1. Allegations of Professional Misconduct:
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ("the Institute") received a complaint alleging that the Respondent, a Chartered Accountant, fabricated bogus payment challans and misappropriated funds meant for sales tax payments during 1992-1994. The complaint was filed by the Director of M/s. Twincity Glass Pvt. Ltd. in April 2004.

2. Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings:
Upon receiving the complaint, the Institute called for a response from the Respondent, who denied all allegations. The Council of the Institute found a prima facie case of professional misconduct and referred it to the Disciplinary Committee. The Committee, after hearings, found the Respondent guilty of "other misconduct" under Sections 21 and 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and recommended his removal from the Register of Members for one year.

3. Delay in Proceedings:
The judgment highlights the inordinate delay in the proceedings. The complaint was filed in 2004, but the final recommendation was made only in 2018, with the Reference being filed in 2019 and registered in 2023. The Court criticized the Institute for the 19-year delay, noting that it kept the Respondent in a prolonged state of uncertainty.

4. Acquittal in Criminal Case:
The Respondent was acquitted of all charges in a related criminal case by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in May 2018. The Court noted that the criminal court's acquittal, based on the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" principle, casts doubt on the findings of the Disciplinary Committee, which operates under a lesser degree of proof.

5. Council's Recommendation and Judicial Review:
The Court found that the Council merely reproduced the Committee's report without independent analysis or justification for the recommended punishment. Citing principles of natural justice, the Court emphasized the need for reasoned decisions. The Court concluded that the prolonged delay and lack of substantial evidence warranted no further action against the Respondent, directing the proceedings to be filed by the Institute.

Conclusion:
The Reference was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the Court directed that no further action be taken against the Respondent.

---