Telangana High Court
Ca Abps Sastry vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 6 May, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_30759_2021
NBK, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.30759 of 2021
06th May, 2026
Between:
CA ABPS Sastry, S/o Late A. Rama Murthy
... Petitioner
AND
Union of India, and others
... Respondents
ORDER:
The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant, enrolled in 1982 with the ICAI and holding Membership No. 021662. A complaint dated 17.11.2015 (received on 29.12.2015) was filed by the 5th respondent before the 4th respondent-disciplinary authority alleging that during the statutory audit of Paramount Agro Complex Limited, for the financial year ending 31.03.2001, the petitioner had falsified the paid-up capital of the company in its audited balance sheet, and for the financial year ending 31.03.2006, the petitioner understated the value of land sold to M/s Chalapathi Estates Pvt. Ltd.
1.1. It is contended that there were internal disputes within Paramount Agro Complex Limited concerning share allotments, management control, and asset sales, and these disputes led one B. Manipal Reddy, former Managing Director, to file Company Petition No. 109 of 2 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J 2008, culminating in an order dated 07.07.2011 by this Court directing the Central Government to appoint an inspector to investigate the company's affairs. Pursuant to this, the Central Government, by order dated 13.10.2011 under Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956, appointed the 5th respondent from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) as Inspector. The SFIO submitted its investigation report, following which the Central Government, by letter dated 24.09.2012, directed that appropriate action be taken by regulatory authorities.
1.2. It is contended that even contemporaneous records undermine the allegations against the petitioner. A letter dated 06.01.2012 issued by the Registrar of Companies recorded that annual reports of the company for the period 1995-2003 were not available in the MCA record room, thereby making retrospective verification of several allegations practically impossible. He further contends that the impugned allegations relate to transactions as far back as 1995 and 1998 (share allotments), the financial year 2000-2001 (paid-up capital), and 2005-2006 (sale of land), thereby revealing an inordinate delay exceeding ten years in initiating disciplinary action.
1.3. It is contended that despite these constraints, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Ref. No. PR-308/2015- DD/270/15. The petitioner submits that upon receiving notice, he filed a detailed written statement, setting out his defense, after which the complainant filed a rejoinder. Additional documents were also called for by the disciplinary authorities. However, without properly appreciating the pleadings or evidence, the 4th respondent issued a prima facie opinion dated 22.12.2017, concluding that the petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct. The petitioner contends that this opinion was reached 3 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J mechanically and without due consideration of facts or applicable procedural safeguards.
1.4. It is contended that the invocation of Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules mandate that complaints involving allegations dating back several years should not be entertained where delay impairs the ability of the accused to defend himself. It is contended that since the alleged misconduct relates to periods as early as 1995-2001 and 2005-2006, and the complaint itself was entertained more than seven to ten years later, the 4th respondent ought to have declined jurisdiction at the threshold. Instead, the proceedings were continued, demonstrating a failure to exercise mandatory discretion and non-application of mind.
1.5. It is contended that the disciplinary mechanism was procedurally vitiated at multiple stages. After the prima facie opinion, the matter was placed before the 3rd respondent disciplinary committee, where he filed a detailed response. However, the 3rd respondent fundamentally altered the nature of inquisitorial disciplinary proceedings into an adversarial private dispute between him and the complainant. He specifically contends that no notice was issued to the Director (Discipline), contrary to Section 21B of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and Rule 18 of the 2007 Rules, and that he was denied opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence.
1.6. The petitioner further submits that the mandatory procedural framework under Rule 18, which requires participation of the Director (Discipline), issuance of notices to all concerned parties, and structured stages of evidence and argument, was completely bypassed. It is contended that the complainant was improperly allowed to assume an active 4 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J prosecutorial role, which the law does not permit, thereby rendering the proceedings fundamentally illegal.
1.7. It is contended that despite these objections, the disciplinary committee proceeded to pass an order dated 03.02.2021 holding him guilty of misconduct. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.03.2021 to the 3rd respondent, highlighting factual errors and procedural infirmities. However, this representation was not meaningfully considered, and by order dated 29.04.2021 (communicated on 18.09.2021), the committeeimposed punishment of removal from membership for one year and a monetary penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, with an additional consequence of further suspension in default of payment.
1.8. In essence, the petitioner's case is that the entire disciplinary process is legally unsustainable due to (i) gross delay exceeding a decade,
(ii) reliance on incomplete and unavailable records, (iii) violation of mandatory procedural safeguards under Rule 12 and Rule 18, (iv) denial of natural justice including absence of cross-examination and improper exclusion of the Director (Discipline), and (v) mechanical acceptance of allegations without independent assessment. He therefore seeks judicial intervention to set aside the orders dated 03.02.2021 and 29.04.2021 and restore his professional standing.
2. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents No. 2 to 4 essentially contending that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability. It is contended that the petitioner's challenge to the disciplinary orders dated 03.02.2021 and 29.04.2021 is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution since an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal is expressly available under Section 5 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J 22G of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. It is pointed out that the petitioner himself acknowledges the existence of such an appellate remedy in paragraph 19 of his affidavit but has nonetheless bypassed it without justification. On this basis, the respondents contend that the writ petition is an abuse of process and liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further contended that the disciplinary mechanism of the Institute, as governed by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (as amended in 2006) and the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, operates through a structured, transparent, and independent process applied uniformly to all members based on the merits of each case.
2.1. It is contended that disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner pursuant to a complaint dated 17.11.2015 filed by the 5th respondent before the Director (Discipline) of ICAI alleging professional misconduct by the petitioner. Upon receipt of this complaint, it was forwarded to the petitioner, who submitted his written statement on 09.02.2016. Thereafter, by letter dated 16.02.2016 issued by the Assistant Secretary of the Disciplinary Directorate, the petitioner's written statement was transmitted to the complainant (5th respondent), who in turn filed a rejoinder dated 10.03.2016. The respondents state that all pleadings-- namely the complaint, written statement dated 09.02.2016, and rejoinder dated 10.03.2016--along with supporting material were duly examined by the 4th respondent, who arrived at a prima facie opinion on 22.12.2017 concluding that the petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct under Clauses (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the 1949 Act, based on detailed reasoning contained in paragraphs 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5 of the prima facie opinion.
6wp_30759_2021 NBK, J 2.2. It is contended that the Disciplinary Committee concurred with the prima facie findings and, by communication dated 09.05.2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary, informed the petitioner that it agreed with the prima facie opinion and had decided to proceed under Chapter V of the 2007 Rules. This letter also forwarded a copy of the prima facie opinion to the petitioner and called upon him to submit a further written statement, list of witnesses, and supporting documents within 14 days. Simultaneously, the complainant was also directed to submit a rejoinder to the petitioner's additional submissions. In response, the petitioner submitted a further written statement dated 16.06.2018.
2.3. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings progressed with hearings before the Committee, during which the material on record was examined and submissions of the complainant's counsel were heard. It is asserted that on 17.09.2020, the petitioner himself sent an email stating that due to his advanced age and medical advice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, he would not be able to furnish further submissions and requested that the Committee proceed in his absence and decide the matter based on the available record. The Committee accepted this request and proceeded accordingly.
2.4. Subsequently, after consideration of the material on record, the Disciplinary Committee passed its order dated 03.02.2021 holding the petitioner guilty of professional misconduct under Charges 1 and 2 within the meaning of Clauses (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Part I of the Second Schedule. Thereafter, by letter dated 26.02.2021, the Disciplinary Directorate informed the petitioner of the findings and also indicated that an opportunity of hearing under Section 21B would be provided before passing final punishment, while inviting any written representation. The petitioner 7 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J submitted a representation dated 30.03.2021 challenging the findings. However, on 22.04.2021, he again communicated by email that due to old age and medical advice, he was unable to participate further in hearings, including video conferencing, and requested that the matter be finalized on the basis of his written submissions.
2.5. Finally, after considering the representation dated 30.03.2021 and the overall record, the Disciplinary Committee passed its final order dated 29.04.2021 holding that the petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct and imposing the punishment of removal of his name from the Register of Members for a period of one year along with a monetary penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, payable within three months. It was further directed that failure to pay would result in an additional removal period of one month as per the applicable provisions. This order was communicated to the petitioner on 10.09.2021.
2.6. The respondents categorically deny any violation of statutory provisions, procedural rules, or principles of natural justice. They contend that the allegation that the prima facie opinion dated 22.12.2017 was formed without application of mind is wholly incorrect. It is contended that the prima facie opinion was based on a careful examination of the complaint dated 17.11.2015, the written statement dated 09.02.2016, and the rejoinder dated 10.03.2016. They similarly reject the contention that the Disciplinary Committee committed procedural irregularities, maintaining that the entire process was conducted strictly in accordance with the 2007 Rules and applicable statutory framework.
2.7. The respondents further specifically rebut the petitioner's claims regarding denial of opportunity and violation of natural justice. It is 8 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J contended that the petitioner was repeatedly given opportunities to participate, submit documents, and present his case, but he voluntarily chose not to attend the hearings, including those held on 03.02.2021 and 29.04.2021. It is contended that the petitioner himself requested through emails dated 17.09.2020 and 22.04.2021, to proceed further with the proceedings in his absence. In this background, the respondents assert that the petitioner is estopped from alleging procedural violations after having deliberately opted out of participation.
2.8. It is contended that ample notice and opportunity were provided to the petitioner at every stage, including supply of documents, invitation for additional submissions by letter dated 09.05.2018, and consideration of his written representation dated 30.03.2021 before passing the final order. They maintain that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in a fair, transparent, and quasi-judicial manner and that the final order dated 29.04.2021 is a well-reasoned decision based on the complete record. In addition, the respondents contend that the petitioner's challenge is motivated merely by dissatisfaction with the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and does not disclose any jurisdictional error or procedural illegality warranting interference by this Court.
2.9. It is contended that the respondents failed to demonstrate any violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or any breach of mandatory procedure under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 or the 2007 Rules. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition is devoid of merit and hence liable to be dismissed.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.5, essentially contending that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of 9 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J maintainability. It is contended that the petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 22G of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which he has deliberately failed to exhaust.
3.1. It is contended that a Company Petition No. 109 of 2008 was preferred before this Court, wherein by order dated 07.07.2011 this Court recorded findings that M/s PalamoorAgro Complex Limited was involved in fraud. Acting upon this judicial direction, the Central Government, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, issued an Order dated 13.10.2011 under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956, appointing officers of SFIO as Inspectors, with the respondent himself appointed as one of the Inspectors under Section 237(b). The investigation culminated in a report submitted to the Ministry recommending disciplinary proceedings against M/s ABPS Sastry & Company through its partner CA ABPS Sastry, the petitioner herein, for professional misconduct before the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).
3.2. According to the respondent, the SFIO investigation revealed that the petitioner was the statutory auditor of M/s PalamoorAgro Complex Limited for the financial years 2000-01 to 2005-06 and was responsible for certifying the company's financial statements. It was specifically found that the company failed to comply with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and accounting standards prescribed by ICAI, yet the petitioner failed to qualify or report these irregularities in his audit reports. The investigation identified two major financial irregularities: first, that the paid-up capital of the company for the financial year 2000-01 had been falsified as discussed in paragraph 3.16 of the investigation report; and second, that the value of land sold to M/s Chalapathi Estates Private Limited had been understated in 10 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J the financial statements for the financial year 2005-06, as recorded in paragraph 3.17 of the report.
3.3. The 5th respondent further alleges that the petitioner, through his firm M/s ABPS Sastry & Company, deliberately and willfully misstated facts in the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2006, thereby incorporating fictitious entries and failing to present a true and fair view of the company's financial position. It is asserted that this conduct amounted to falsification of accounts and breach of statutory obligations under Section 227 of the Companies Act, 1956, as well as failure to comply with mandatory auditing standards issued by ICAI. On this basis, the respondent concludes that the petitioner's conduct squarely attracted disciplinary proceedings under Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for professional misconduct.
3.4. It is contended that pursuant to the SFIO investigation report submitted under Section 237(a)(ii), the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, by letter dated 24.09.2012, directed the SFIO to initiate prosecution and disciplinary action against the petitioner for certification of allegedly fabricated and false accounts. Acting on this mandate, SFIO lodged a formal complaint dated 17.11.2015 before the Director (Discipline), ICAI. This complaint and the subsequent rejoinder dated 10.03.2016 filed by SFIO before the disciplinary authorities accurately reflect the allegations and supporting material. The Director (Discipline), ICAI, after considering the complaint dated 17.11.2015, the petitioner's written statement, the rejoinder dated 10.03.2016, and additional material, passed a prima facie opinion dated 22.12.2017 holding that the petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct under Clauses (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. This prima facie 11 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J conclusion was subsequently affirmed by the Disciplinary Committee in proceedings Ref. No. PR-308/15-DD/270/15-DC/765/2018, which by order dated 03.02.2021 recorded that the petitioner was guilty under Charges 1 and 2 within the meaning of Clauses (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Part I of the Second Schedule. Thereafter, by final order dated 29.04.2021, the Disciplinary Committee imposed punishment removing the petitioner's name from the Register of Members for a period of one year and levying a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, payable within three months, with a further consequence of additional removal for one month in case of non-payment, purportedly in line with Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code as referenced in the order.
3.5. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the 2007 Rules, and that the petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities at every stage of the process to defend his case. It is contended that the petitioner participated in the initial stages by filing a written statement and subsequent submissions, but later chose not to participate in hearings, having expressly communicated through email that he was unable to attend proceedings and requested that the Committee decide the matter based on available records.
3.6. It is contended that the petitioner's sent an email dated 17.09.2020, in which he stated that due to old age and medical advice during the COVID-19 pandemic, he would not be able to attend the hearing and requested that the Committee proceed in his absence. Again, by email dated 22.04.2021, the petitioner reiterated his inability to participate in person or via video conferencing and requested finalization of proceedings based on his written representation dated 30.03.2021. It is therefore 12 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J contended that the petitioner cannot now allege denial of opportunity or violation of natural justice, as he himself opted out of participation and requested to proceed with the enquiry in his absence.
3.7. It is contended that there were no violations of procedure, no denial of cross-examination or opportunity, and that the disciplinary process was conducted in a fair, transparent, and quasi-judicial manner. It is also contended that the petitioner, having voluntarily abstained from participation in the disciplinary hearings despite being granted opportunities, is now precluded from challenging the process after an adverse decision has been rendered. It is further alleged that the writ petition is a belated attempt to evade consequences of proven professional misconduct.
3.8. It is therefore contended that the disciplinary findings dated 03.02.2021 and the final punishment order dated 29.04.2021 are fully justified, legally sustainable, and based on cogent material arising from the SFIO investigation and ICAI proceedings, and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent, essentially contending that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability, due to availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 22G of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
4.1. It is stated that in Company Petition No. 109 of 2008, this Court by order dated 07.07.2011, found that M/s PalamoorAgro Complex Limited was involved in fraud and directed the Central Government to appoint Inspectors to examine its affairs. Pursuant to this direction, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued Order dated 13.10.2011 under Section 13 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956, appointing officers of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) as Inspectors, including the deponent (Respondent No.5) under Section237(b).
4.2. Following this mandate, SFIO conducted a detailed investigation into the affairs of the company and, upon completion, submitted its report to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The investigation report recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against M/s ABPS Sastry & Company, through its partner CA ABPS Sastry (the petitioner)for professional misconduct before the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The respondent asserts that during this investigation it was established that the petitioner was the statutory auditor of the company for the financial years 2000-01 to 2005-06, and therefore the petitioner is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and fairness of the company's financial reporting.
4.3. It is contended that two principal financial irregularities have been uncovered during the investigation. First, as detailed inparagraph 3.16 of the investigation report, the paid-up capital of the company for the financial year 2000-01 was found to have been falsified. Second, as set out in paragraph 3.17 of the report, the value of land sold to M/s Chalpathi Estates Private Limited during the financial year 2005-06 was understated in the company's financial statements. It is further alleged that the petitioner deliberately and willfully misstated facts in the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2006, introduced fictitious entries into the accounts, and thereby caused the financial statements to fail in presenting a true and fair view of the company's affairs.
14wp_30759_2021 NBK, J 4.4. On the basis of these findings, the respondent concludes that the petitioner failed in his statutory duties under Section 227 of the Companies Act, 1956, and also violated mandatory accounting standards issued by ICAI. It is asserted that the petitioner's conduct amounted to neglect of professional duties and rendered him liable for disciplinary action under Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for professional misconduct.
4.5. It is contended that, following the submission of the SFIO report under Section 237(a)(ii) to the Central Government, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued a letterdated 24.09.2012, authorising SFIO to initiate prosecution and lodge a formal complaint with ICAI against the petitioner for certification of fabricated and false accounts and for professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Acting on this authorization, SFIO submitted a formal complaint dated 17.11.2015 to the Director (Discipline), ICAI, initiating disciplinary proceedings.
4.6. It is contended that the disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with statutory procedure. The Director (Discipline), ICAI, after considering the complaint, written statement of the petitioner, rejoinder dated 10.03.2016, and additional documents, issued a prima facie opinion dated 22.12.2017, holding that the petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct under Clauses (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. This finding was subsequently affirmed by the Disciplinary Committee (Bench III, 2020-21) in proceedings Ref. No. PR-308/15-DD/270/2015-DC/765/2018, which by order dated 03.02.2021 held the petitioner guilty under Charges 1 and 2 under the same statutory provisions. Thereafter, by final order dated 29.04.2021, the Disciplinary Committee imposed the penalty of removal of 15 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J the petitioner's name from the Register of Members for a period of one year, along with a monetary fine of Rs. 25,000/-, payable within three months of receipt of the order. It was further directed that failure to comply would result in additional removal for one more month. The respondent emphasizes that this order was lawfully passed after due consideration of pleadings, hearing, and material on record.
5. The petitioner filed reply affidavits in response to the counter affidavits of respondents No.2 to 4, and respondent No.5, essentially contending that the writ petition is fully maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 despite the alternative remedy under Section 22G of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, because the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the orders dated 03.02.2021and29.04.2021 are fundamentally vitiated by violations of statutory procedure under the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 and breach of natural justice under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). He denies all allegations of professional misconduct relating to audit work of M/s. PalamoorAgro Complex Ltd. for financial years 1995-2001 and 2005-2006, asserting that he acted only as a statutory auditor based on available records and applicable accounting standards, without involvement in management decisions. He further contends that the disciplinary process is illegal due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Rule 18, improper handling of inquiry proceedings, denial of effective opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and conversion of an inquisitorial mechanism into an adversarial dispute. Additionally, the petitioner raises a jurisdictional objection underRule 12 of the 2007 Rules, contending that the complaint is effectively time-barred as it concerns 16 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J events older than 7 years prior to the complaint dated 17.11.2015, and highlights prejudice caused by missing records as evidenced by the ROC communication dated 06.01.2012 stating that records for 1995-2003 are unavailable. He also disputes all findings of falsification or deliberate misstatement, characterizing the audit treatment as bona fide professional judgment rather than misconduct.
6. Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Union of India, and Mr. C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4.
7. Considering the respective contentions, the grievance of the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are fundamentally flawed, unjust, and legally unsustainable. He contends that the allegations pertain to events dating back more than a decade, making effective defense impossible due to missing and unavailable records, yet the authorities failed to reject the complaint despite such inordinate delay. He further asserts that the disciplinary authorities acted mechanically, without properly considering his detailed defense or the evidentiary gaps, and violated mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the relevant rules. According to him, the process was vitiated by denial of natural justice, including lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, exclusion of the Director (Discipline), and improper transformation of the proceedings into an adversarial dispute driven by the complainant. Despite raising these issues, the authorities proceeded to hold him guilty and impose penalties without meaningful consideration of his objections, leading him to challenge the entire process as arbitrary, procedurally defective, and contrary to law.
17wp_30759_2021 NBK, J
8. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-ICAI, the petitioner has been given ample opportunities to defend his case, and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the respondent-ICAI has passed the impugned orders, and therefore there is no violation of fundamental rights, or principles of natural justice in passing the impugned orders. It is contended that there is an appeal provision under Section 22G of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, against impugned orders, which has not been availed by the petitioner.
9. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to make contentions on the merits of the matter, the availability of appeal remedy under Section 22G of the Act, has not been disputed.
10. In the instant case, admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have culminated in the passing of impugned orders imposing punishment of removal of petitioner's name from the roll of membership for a period of one year by imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/-. It is settled law that this Court is not an appellate authority to sit in appeal over the decisions of disciplinary authorities, and the judicial review of disciplinary action is limited to procedural fairness as contemplated under the relevant Rules, and following of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has participated in the disciplinary proceedings and adduced his evidence. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there was no opportunity afforded to the petitioner. Furthermore, there is an appeal provision under Section 22G of the Act against the impugned orders.
11. It is settled law that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks 1, though the 1 1998 (8) SCC 1 18 wp_30759_2021 NBK, J existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain a writ petition, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised when (i) fundamental rights are violated, (ii) principles of natural justice are violated,
(iii) the order was passed by an authority that has no jurisdiction, and (iv) the vires of an Act or constitutionality of a law are challenged.
12. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no violation of fundamental rights, or violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the jurisdiction of the authority in passing the impugned orders is also not in dispute. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to entertain the writ petition bypassing the appeal remedy provided under Section 22G of the Act.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy provided under Section 22G of the Act, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Status Quo order granted on 06.12.2021 shall be operative until filing of the appeal, or for six weeks, whichever is earlier. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 06th May, 2026 ksm