2023 (12) TMI 945 - HC - Indian Laws

Professional misconduct order under Section 22A Chartered Accountants Act upheld as revision petition dismissed for lack of maintainability

The HC dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a professional misconduct order passed by the Council under Section 22A of the Chartered ... Tribunal - Lis - Adjudication - Transfer of judicial power - Article 227 jurisdiction - Article 226 jurisdiction - Board of Discipline - Natural justiceTribunal - Article 227 jurisdiction - Board of Discipline - The Board of Discipline constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 is not a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the established test for identifying a 'Tribunal' and found that the Board of Discipline does not satisfy the essential attributes required for a body to be treated as a Tribunal for the purposes of Article 227. The Board does not exercise transferred judicial powers to adjudicate a lis between contesting parties; its function is to examine complaints of professional misconduct to see whether there is reason to believe misconduct has occurred. The mere holding of hearings and application of principles of natural justice does not convert such a body into a Tribunal, because natural justice obligations may arise even where there is no transfer of judicial power by the State. Consequently, the Board of Discipline was held not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Article 227. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 23]Board of Discipline is not a Tribunal within Article 227 and therefore not subject to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.Lis - Adjudication - Transfer of judicial power - A complaint before the Board of Discipline does not constitute a 'lis' and the Board does not adjudicate a lis between contesting parties. - HELD THAT: - Relying on authority concerning disciplinary bodies, the Court observed that proceedings before the Board are investigatory and protective of professional standards rather than adversarial disputes between parties. A complainant before the disciplinary body is not analogous to a plaintiff in a civil suit; the Board's role is to determine whether there is reason to believe misconduct occurred, and it may act suo motu. Because there is no transfer of judicial power to decide a lis and no adjudication of competing legal rights between contesting parties, the proceedings do not amount to a lis for constituting a Tribunal. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22]Proceedings before the Board of Discipline are not a lis and do not amount to adjudication of a lis; hence the Board is not a Tribunal.Article 227 jurisdiction - Article 226 jurisdiction - The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 is not maintainable in respect of the Board of Discipline; however, relief may be sought by filing a writ petition under Article 226. - HELD THAT: - Since the Board of Discipline is not a Tribunal within Article 227, the Court held that revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked against its order and accordingly dismissed the Civil Revision Petition as not maintainable. The Court nonetheless recognized the broader scope of Article 226 and granted the petitioner liberty to file a writ petition under Article 226, observing that the period during which the Civil Revision was prosecuted would not be taken against the petitioner for laches if such a writ is filed. [Paras 3, 23, 24]Civil Revision under Article 227 dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner granted liberty to file a writ under Article 226 without prejudice on laches.Final Conclusion: The Civil Revision Petition challenging the Board of Discipline's order is dismissed as not maintainable under Article 227 since the Board is not a 'Tribunal' nor does the complaint constitute a 'lis'; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 226, with the time spent in prosecuting the revision not to be treated against the petitioner for laches. No costs. Issues involved:The issue involves the maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition against an order passed by the Board of Discipline under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.Details of the Judgment:1. The petitioner lodged a complaint against the second respondent alleging professional misconduct, which was dismissed by the first respondent, the Board of Discipline. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal.2. The High Court raised a doubt on the maintainability of the revision since the Board of Discipline is not a Court or Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. The petitioner argued that the Board of Discipline is a 'Tribunal' and cited past judgments, but the Court found those references not applicable to the current issue.4. The Court referred to relevant judgments to explain the distinction between the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the High Court's superintendence and control over courts and tribunals.5. The Court analyzed the characteristics of a Tribunal based on legal precedents, emphasizing the need for a body to decide a lis (a dispute) between contesting parties to be considered a Tribunal.6. The Court concluded that a complaint to a professional body does not amount to a lis, and therefore, the Board of Discipline cannot be considered a Tribunal under Article 227, making the Civil Revision Petition not maintainable.7. The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without penalizing for any delay caused by the previous proceedings.