Delhi High Court - Orders
Mr Abhishek Rara vs Disciplinary Committee Bench Iii The ... on 26 November, 2021
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~26-33 (connected)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13375/2021
MR ABHISHEK RARA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Niraj Kishan Kaul, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Kamal Shankar,
Mr. Gautam Varma, Ms. Vatsala Rai,
Mr. Atul N, Mr. Raghav Chaddha,
Ms. Pritha Suri and Ms. Ira Mahajan,
Advocates.
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 13376/2021
USHA RAJEEV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Shankar with Mr. Gautam
Varma, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Mr. Atul N
and Mr. Raghav Chaddha, Advocates.
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 13377/2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAKSHI W.P.(C) 13375/2021 and connected matters Page 1 of 7
RAMOLA
Signing Date:11.27.2021
23:25:01
RAHUL CHATTOPADHYAY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Shankar with Mr. Gautam
Varma, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Mr. Atul N
and Mr. Raghav Chaddha, Advocates.
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 13378/2021
AMITESH DUTTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Shankar with Mr. Gautam
Varma, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Mr. Atul N
and Mr. Raghav Chaddha, Advocates.
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 13379/2021
RAJAN WADHAWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Shankar with Mr. Gautam
Varma, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Mr. Atul N
and Mr. Raghav Chaddha, Advocates.
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAKSHI W.P.(C) 13375/2021 and connected matters Page 2 of 7
RAMOLA
Signing Date:11.27.2021
23:25:01
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 13380/2021
PRIYANSHU DINESHKUMAR GUNDANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Shankar with Mr. Gautam
Varma, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Mr. Atul N
and Mr. Raghav Chaddha, Advocates.
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 13381/2021
USHA RAJEEV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Shankar with Mr. Gautam
Varma, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Mr. Atul N
and Mr. Raghav Chaddha, Advocates.
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 13382/2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAKSHI W.P.(C) 13375/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 7
RAMOLA
Signing Date:11.27.2021
23:25:01
ANURAG KHANDELWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Shankar with Mr. Gautam
Varma, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Mr. Atul N
and Mr. Raghav Chaddha, Advocates.
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 26.11.2021 CM No. 42142/2021 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 13375/2021 CM No. 42144/2021 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 13376/2021 CM No. 42146/2021 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 13377/2021 CM No. 42148/2021 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 13378/2021 CM No. 42150/2021 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 13379/2021 CM No. 42152/2021 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 13380/2021 CM No. 42154/2021 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 13381/2021 CM No. 42156/2021 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 13382/2021
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
CM No. 42141/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 13375/2021 CM No. 42143/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 13376/2021 CM No. 42145/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 13377/2021 CM No. 42147/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 13378/2021 CM No. 42149/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 13379/2021 CM No. 42151/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 13380/2021 CM No. 42153/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 13381/2021 CM No. 42155/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 13382/2021
3. The present batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI W.P.(C) 13375/2021 and connected matters Page 4 of 7 RAMOLA Signing Date:11.27.2021 23:25:01 India impugns the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners vide the letter dated 6th December, 2018 issued by the respondents.
4. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the facts in the present petitions are identical to the petition filed earlier, being W.P.(C) 11944/2021 titled as Harinderjit Singh vs. Disciplinary Committee Bench III, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Anr., wherein this Court vide order dated 26th October, 2021 has granted stay on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein. Therefore, he seeks a stay on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents against the present petitioners.
5. Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the present disciplinary proceedings against Price Waterhouse, Chartered Accountants, LLP (the Firm) was initiated on the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court passed in S. Sukumar versus Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, (2018) 14 SCC 360 and further submits that the investigations are being monitored by the Supreme Court.
6. Counsel for the respondent places reliance on Rule 8(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, (Investigation Rules) which is set out below:
"(2) A member whose name is disclosed by the firm shall be responsible for answering the complaint, provided such a member was associated, either as partner or employee, with the firm, against which the complaint has been filed, at the time of occurrence of the alleged misconduct:Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI W.P.(C) 13375/2021 and connected matters Page 5 of 7 RAMOLA Signing Date:11.27.2021 23:25:01
Provided that if no member, whether erstwhile or present, of the firm, own responsibility for the allegation or allegations made against the firm, then the firm as a whole shall be responsible for answering the allegation or allegations and, as such, all the members who were partners or employees of the firm, as on the date of occurrence of the alleged misconduct, shall be responsible for answering the allegation or allegations as contained in the complaint."
7. On the basis of the aforesaid rules, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that, in the present case, the Firm has nominated individual(s) for answering the complaint/allegations, who were neither partners nor employees of the Firm at the time of occurrence of the alleged misconduct.
8. In response, senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that, the Firm in its reply dated 17th April, 2018 to the notice dated 16th March, 2018, has denied that there has been violation by the Firm or any members of the Firm and hence, there is no member answerable for the same. However, as required under Rule 8 (1) of the Investigation Rules, the Firm has nominated an individual for administrative purposes of communications with the respondents viz-a-viz the disciplinary proceedings against the Firm and the nominated individual's declaration in this regard has also been sent along with the aforesaid letter dated 17th April, 2018. It is also stated that an application for discharge has been filed by all the petitioners in respect of which no decision has been taken by the respondents till date.
9. In the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) attached with the notice dated 6th December, 2018, there is nothing to suggest that the Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI W.P.(C) 13375/2021 and connected matters Page 6 of 7 RAMOLA Signing Date:11.27.2021 23:25:01 petitioners are answerable in their individual capacity in respect of allegations raised in the notice. Therefore, it appears that the only reasons disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners is because they have replied on behalf of the Firm to the notice sent to the Firm.
10. In my prima facie view, there is no justification for the disciplinary proceedings being initiated by the respondents against the petitioners solely on the ground that they had replied to the notice on behalf of the Firm and unless some prima facie determination is made by the respondent that the petitioners were responsible for allegations made against the Firm.
11. Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondents.
12. Reply be filed within 3 weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing.
13. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners. However, it is clarified that the respondents are free to take a decision on the discharge application filed on behalf of the petitioners. It is also clarified that there is no stay in so far as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Firm, Price Waterhouse, Chartered Accountants, LLP.
14. List on 14th January, 2022 along with W.P.(C) 11944/2021.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
NOVEMBER 26, 2021 at Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI W.P.(C) 13375/2021 and connected matters Page 7 of 7 RAMOLA Signing Date:11.27.2021 23:25:01