Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.
1. We have heard Shri Vinod Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Shri Suyash Agrawal appears for the Central Government.
2. This reference under Section 21 (5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 against Shri M.L. Agarwal, FCA, M/s Munna Jaggi & Co., Chartered Accountants, E-1, Kamla Nagar, Agra, was presented before the Addl. Registrar of the High Court on 26.5.1998 for passing necessary orders under Section 21 (6) of the Act on the decision taken by the Council to reprimand the respondent by way of punishment after holding disciplinary enquiry and accepting the report of the Disciplinary Committee by the Council, in its meeting held from 6th to 8th December, 1995, finding the respondent guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 21 read with Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and under Clause (i) of Part-II of the Second Schedule of the Act.
3. Notices were issued to the respondent on 13.9.2011 to show cause as to why proposed punishment be not confirmed by the High Court. The office reports that the notices were issued to the respondent on 20.9.2011, by registered post AD fixing 17.10.2011. The office further reports that neither acknowledgment nor undelivered cover was received back after service. By order dated 17.10.2011 the service of notice on the respondent, was deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court. The matter was heard on 29.8.2012.
4. The respondent was charged as under:-
"Shri V.K. Sharma (KK-14390) was registered as an articled clerk under the respondent w.e.f. 27th July, 1987 for a period of three years. Against the total stipend of Rs.1,650/- due to the articled clerk, the respondent paid only Rs.600/- by crossed account payee cheques not on month-to-month basis. Thus he contravened the provisions of Regulation 48 (old Regulation 32B of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 and violated Clause (i) of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949."
5. Vide notice to letter dated 5.12.1990 the respondent was conveyed the charge, and was required to submit his written statement duly verified on 30.3.1991. The Council considered the information together with the written statement under Regulation 12 (11) of the Chartered Accountants Regulation, 1988 in its 152nd meeting held on 16th and 17th January, 1992.
6. The Council being prima facie of the opinion that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee.
7. The Disciplinary Committee held enquiry on 14th July, 1993 at New Delhi. It recorded evidence of the witnesses and after hearing the submissions made by the respondent submitted its report dated 2nd January, 1994 with the opinion that the respondent had not paid full amount of stipend to the articled clerk on month to month basis and had contravened the provisions of Regulation 48 of the Chartered Accountants Regulation, 1988, and was thus guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Clause (i) of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (in terms of Section 21 read with Section 22 of the Act).
8. The report of the Disciplinary Committee was forwarded to the Institute. The respondent by letter of the Institute dated 7.11.1994, was informed that the report will be considered by the Council. He was required to send his written representation and if he so desired to appear before the Council either in person or through a member of the Institute duly authorised by him for making oral submissions.
9. The respondent was duly informed with the meeting of the Council on 20.7.1995. The consideration of the report was deferred in the meeting of which information was sent to the respondent. On 17th August, 1995 the respondent was again informed that the report of the Disciplinary Committee will be considered by the Council on 6th September, 1995. Again the consideration of report was deferred at the request of the respondent to submit his written representation.
10. The respondent submitted two written representations dated 27.9.1995 and the other without date, which was received on 7.12.1995. He was informed by letter dated 13.11.1995 that the report will be considered by the Council on 7th December, 1995. Neither the respondent nor his authorised representative appeared before the Council on which the report was considered and was accepted by the Council. It was decided to recommend to the High Court that the respondent be reprimanded.
11. We have perused the records, which includes the charge; the evidence; the reply given by the respondent; the evidence led before the Disciplinary Committee; the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee and the acceptance of the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee by the Council. We do not find any error of procedure or violation of principle of natural justice, in the disciplinary proceedings.
12. The punishment proposed by the Council on the charge established against the respondent is not disproportionate to the charge levelled against him.
13. The reference case is accordingly decided approving the punishment awarded by the Council against the respondent. The punishment will be communicated to the Central Government and will be notified to all concerned.
Dt.21.09.2012 SP/