Professional misconduct extends beyond scheduled acts, but deliberate audit delay requires clear proof of improper fee-related motive.

Professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act is not confined to conduct listed in its Schedules. The inclusive definition permits disciplinary inquiry into other conduct that may render a member unfit to remain in the profession. A charge that an auditor deliberately delayed audit finalisation to obtain a higher fee requires clear evidence of that improper motive; suspicion, error of judgment, inefficiency or non-performance alone is insufficient. The material did not establish the alleged fee-related motive, so that charge was not sustained. However, failure to give due importance to the urgent completion of audit accounts constituted serious negligence and carelessness, for which a reprimand was considered proportionate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disciplinary jurisdiction for professional misconduct is confined to conduct expressly specified in the Schedules to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949; (ii) Whether the charge that the respondent deliberately delayed finalisation of the audit to secure an audit fee of Rs. 300 was proved, and the appropriate disciplinary consequence.

Issue (i): Whether disciplinary jurisdiction for professional misconduct is confined to conduct expressly specified in the Schedules to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Analysis: Section 22 contains an inclusive definition of professional misconduct and preserves the Council's wider power under Section 21 to inquire into conduct which may render a member unfit to remain a member of the Institute, even where the conduct does not fall within a specified Schedule entry.

Conclusion: Disciplinary jurisdiction is not confined to misconduct expressly enumerated in the Schedules.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge that the respondent deliberately delayed finalisation of the audit to secure an audit fee of Rs. 300 was proved, and the appropriate disciplinary consequence.

Analysis: A professional-misconduct charge requires clear proof and cannot rest upon suspicion, error of judgment, inefficiency, or mere non-performance of duty. The evidence did not clearly establish that the respondent's queries and correspondence were motivated by an object of compelling acceptance of the higher audit fee. However, the respondent failed to accord due importance to the urgency of completing the client's audit, balance-sheet and profit-and-loss account, disclosing serious negligence and carelessness.

Conclusion: The deliberate-delay misconduct charge was not proved; the respondent was reprimanded for negligence and carelessness. The conclusion on the principal charge is in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary jurisdiction was affirmed, but penal action for the alleged fee-related misconduct was not warranted; a reprimand was considered sufficient for the established lapse.

Ratio Decidendi: Professional misconduct must be established by clear evidence; negligence or inefficiency, without proof of dishonest or improper motivation required by the charge, cannot sustain the alleged misconduct, though it may justify a proportionate disciplinary reprimand.

---