Plea for Natural Justice Violations and Misuse of Jurisdiction in Disciplinary Matters against the ICAI: Madras HC asks ICAI Re-examine Matter

The Madras High Court has referred the matter to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) Disciplinary Authority on Plea of CA to examine, unravel, establish accountability for mala fide use of Quasi-Judicial Powers.

The petitioner, V.Venkata Siva Kumar, has filed this Writ Petition to set aside the proceedings of the respondent’s Board of Discipline’s 38th meeting, wherein the said committee accepted the report of the Director Discipline’s prima facie opinion in the matter of the petitioner’s complaint against respondent 4 under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, recommending/passing an order for the case’s closure.

At the time of filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner indicated that he is a qualified Chartered Accountant and lawyer who has been a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for 25 years. The petitioner has been a member of the faculty of leading management and professional institutions such as the Indian Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICAI), IIPM, Loyola Institute of Business Management, RBI Staff College, and others, teaching accountancy, costing, and management to students pursuing professional courses such as CA, MBA, and ICWA.

At various stages of hearing, the High Court admitted several Writ Petitions based on the article. During the investigation, the respondent, Mr. N.S. Srinivasan, stated that he had no basis for making the complaint, which was also affirmed by the Disciplinary Committee. The petitioner filed a disciplinary complaint against the respondent for making malicious and frivolous allegations, which led to the petitioner’s dismissal from his faculty position of 18 years, resulting in a loss of reputation among students and the intellectual community, as well as mental anguish and irreparable financial loss.

The single bench of Justice S.M. Subamaniam found that the petitioner’s allegation was not properly investigated and that established legal rules were not followed. The nature of the claims made in the petitioner’s complaint, the evidence presented, and the statements made are not thoroughly adjudicated, nor are any findings made by the Director of Discipline in his investigation report. The Director Discipline, on the other hand, just formed the judgement that the complainant made an unfounded charge against the 4th respondent, and such findings may not be sufficient because the Director Discipline is the original authority to undertake a trial-type investigation.

As a result, reasons and findings for each concern or accusation must be provided in order to establish a conclusion that the investigation was properly performed.

To Read the Judgment Download PDF Given Below :