Board of Discipline Holds Member Not Guilty of Misconduct in Republic Day Advertisement Case

The disciplinary proceedings arose from a complaint filed by an advocate alleging that a newspaper advertisement published on 26 January 2017 in Dainik Bhaskar portrayed the respondent as the “President” of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. It was alleged that the respondent arranged and financed the advertisement with the intent to project himself falsely and misleadingly. During the inquiry, the respondent admitted having paid Rs. 5,000 for the publication of a Republic Day message but stated that the omission of the words “Patna Branch” from his designation occurred due to a printing error by the newspaper.

It was also claimed that the respondent posted the same advertisement on his social media account, thus distributing the false designation to a greater audience. The Director (Discipline) formed a prima facie opinion that the act amounted to misconduct under Items (5), (6), and (7) of Part I, Item (3) of Part III, and Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule read with Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The respondent contended that the term “Adhyaksh” in Hindi can mean both “Chairman” and “President,” and that he was at the relevant time serving as Chairman of the Patna Branch of the Institute. He emphasised that the advertisement did not bear the CA prefix, logo, contact number, or any details that could amount to solicitation.

Issue Before the Board: Whether the publication and subsequent social media posting of a Republic Day advertisement describing the respondent as “President” of ICAI constituted professional or other misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Board of Discipline Held: The Board examined the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline), the allegations in the complaint, and the submissions of the respondent. It was observed that no evidence was given by the complainant to establish that the respondent had provided or approved the misleading content. The respondent’s explanation that he was Branch Chairman and that “Adhyaksh” could refer to both “Chairman” and “President” was found plausible. It was also noted that he personally bore the advertisement cost of Rs. 5,000, which could not have been incurred from ICAI funds.

The Board noted that the ad neither included the prefix “CA,” contact information, nor promotional material and could therefore not be seen as a solicitation. The complainant failed to testify or present evidence to confirm the accusations. Though the social media posting was poor judgment, there was no proof of intentional misrepresentation or offer of work. On these grounds, the Board ruled that the allegation of misconduct was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the respondent was found Not Guilty of professional or other misconduct under Items (5), (6), and (7) of Part I, Item (3) of Part III, and Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule read with Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and the case was directed to be closed under Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below