Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 16 -

Under Section 30 of the Architects Act, 1972, if on receipt of a complaint made to it, the Council is of the opinion that any architect has been guilty of professional misconduct which, if proved, will render him unfit to practice as an architect, the Council may hold an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules. Section 30 of the Architects Act, 1972 reads as under-

"30. Procedure in inquiries relating to misconduct (1)When on receipt of a complaint made to it, the Council is of opinion that any architect has been guilty of professional misconduct which, if proved, will render him unfit to practice as an architect, the Council may hold an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules.

(2)After holding the inquiry under sub-section (1) and after hearing the architect the Council may, by order reprimand the said architect or suspend him from practice as an architect or remove his name from the register or pass such other order as it thinks fit."

20. As earlier noted and considering section 30, the Misconduct must render an Architect unfit to practice as an architect. It is not the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner in his capacity as an architect has done any act which would render him unfit to practice in so far as

- 22 -

professional duties as an Architect are concerned. The only allegation is that he wanted his online Ph.D. degree to be considered, for selection to the post of Principal. The qualification prescribed by the respondent No.1, are to be followed by the concerned University. There is no requirement that a person should possess a degree or post-graduate or a doctorate, which must be be recognised by the Council of Architecture, to enable a person to apply for the post ig of Principal. If that be the case, the alleged misconduct if any, would not be in the course of his professional duties and as such, neither the regulations nor provisions off the Architects Act would apply. On this ground also, the petition will have to be allowed.

- 23 -

Principal was not in connection with his work in the profession of architect. The academic post which he held had no connection with the profession of an architect i.e. because as section 30(1) itself notes, that if the misconduct is proved, that must render him unfit to practice as an Architect. When a penal provision is construed, that must be considered strictly. This is the normal course of construction of penal provisions. The provision therefore, regarding misconduct in the Regulations must be strictly construed. [ See : Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut and Ors (1984) 1 SCC 1]. Once so construed in the absence of the alleged act, having no connection with the practice of profession of an Architect, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner must be quashed.