Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 518 - HC - Indian LawsGuilty of Professional Misconduct against Chartered Accountant (CA) - recording of reason of the complaint and disclosure of the same - whether the respondent is required to communicate reasons for closing the inquiry against its member that has been initiated on a Complaint filed visa-a-vis on an Information received? HELD THAT:- Rules 7(2)(c) of the Rules provides that where the inquiry is initiated only on an Information, the Institute will be under no obligation to inform the sender of the progress made in respect of the Information received, including the final orders. In terms of Rule 5(7)(a), the “order” of closure of the complaint is passed by the Board of Discipline where the Complainant fails to rectify the defect in the complaint within the time allowed and an “order” for closure is also mandatory under Rule 9(3)(a) where Board of Discipline agrees with the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) that the member is not guilty of any misconduct. Thus, where the inquiry is initiated on a complaint filed under Rule 3 of the Rules, the Complainant is entitled to receive a copy of the order closing such inquiry against the member. ‘Order’ would necessarily include the reasons for the same. The Rules having themselves created this right in favour of the Complainant, it cannot be accepted that the Complainant would only be supplied with the “Information” of the closure of the complaint. Various judgments emphasize the requirement of recording reasons to obviate arbitrary and non-considered decisions even by the administrative authorities. Communication of such reasons to the concerned party is, therefore, essential to achieve this objective of the rule of natural justice. In absence of such communication of reasons, the objective of prescribing a condition for recording reasons may itself fail. It must be held that unless the legislature specifically or by necessary implication exempts the Authority from communicating reasons for its decision, such reasons must be communicated to the affected parties - In the present case, no such exemption is prescribed or can be inferred in the Act. Thus, it is held that the respondent no. 1 is under an obligation to provide reasons to the complainant for its prima facie conclusion of the member being not guilty of any misconduct on the complaint made by a Complainant. At the same time, it is clarified that such reasons need not be elaborate and would not widen the scope of interference of the Courts while exercising powers of judicial review - present petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondent no. 1 to communicate the reasons for its decision that was communicated to the petitioner vide the Impugned Communication dated 09.04.2018, within a period of two weeks of receipt of this order.
|