TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isconduct in other cases. The interest of justice will be met out by reducing the punishment awarded to the Appellant. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on this Authority under clause (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 22E of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, we hereby reduce the punishment awarded and the fine imposed on the Appellant by the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute and passes the following order in this regard. Reprimand and fine of ₹ 50000/- payable within sixty days from the date of issue of this Order and in case of failure of the Appellant to pay the fine of ₹ 50000/- within the stipulated time, his name shall be removed from the Register of Members of the Institute for a period of one month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Secretaries of India (ICSI) and others, whereby, the Disciplinary Committee held him guilty of professional misconduct under clause (7) of Part-I of the Second Schedule of the Act and awarded punishment of removal of Appellant s name from the Register of members for a period of one year after expiry of 60 days from the issuance of the aforesaid order and also imposed fine of ₹ 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only). In case of failure of the appellant to pay fine of ₹ 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) within the stipulated time period, his name shall be removed from the Register of Members of the ICSI for another period of one year, after 60 days from the date of issue of the aforesaid final order. The said clause (7) of Part-I of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company. 3. Pursuant to the receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the Director (Discipline) found Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaunungo Prima-Facie guilty of professional misconduct under clause (7) of Part-I of the Second Schedule of the Act for certifying two Forms 32 pertaining to the removal of Directors of M/s Akruti Trexim Private Limited as Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaunungo did not exercise due diligence which is expected from a professional. However, he was not found guilty of professional misconduct regarding certifying Form 20 (b) for the financial year ended 31st March, 2012 of M/s Akruti Trexim Private Limited. 4. The Director (Discipline) placed his report of the Prima-Facie guilty before the Disciplinary Committee for its consideration, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the Appellant does not want to argue in respect of the alleged professional misconduct, however, he wants to argue on the issue of quantum of punishment, without pressing on the merits of the case relating to professional misconduct. Therefore, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the punishment awarded to the Appellant is too harsh. The Disciplinary Committee has not been fair in awarding the punishment as it has taken a different view in this case and therefore, by submitting few Orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee relating to similar nature of default (Certification of Form 32/DIR 12), submitted that the same requires consideration by this Authority. 7. We have noted the details o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Institute did not object for review of quantum of punishment and submitted before us that the Authority may decide the same considering the merit of the case. 9. From the perusal of Orders of the Disciplinary Committee in three cases referred in the table above, it appears that Disciplinary Committee has taken a different view in this case though the nature of professional misconduct relates to certification of Forms. 10. Accordingly, after perusing the documents on record and hearing the arguments of the Learned Counsel of the Appellant on the core issue of quantum of punishment, we are of the considered view that punishment awarded to the Appellant in the present matter is certainly on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
