The appellant is  a chartered accountant having his Office as Dinesh K. Agrawal & Co., Chartered Accountants. Information was received by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) from the Office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of the Income-tax alleging that the appellant was guilty of professional and/or other misconduct and had interpolated assessee’s copies of challans to show higher figures and claimed the higher amount from them. Accordingly, ICAI referred the case of the appellant to the Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Council accepted the Report of the Disciplinary Committee and found that the appellant was guilty of ‘other misconduct’ under section 22 read with section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.The Council also decided to recommend to the High Court that the name of the appellant be removed from the Register of Members for a period of two years. The High Court, on consideration of the reference, confirmed the Resolution of the Council that the appellant was guilty of ‘other misconduct’ warranting appropriate punishment and, therefore, ordered the removal of the name of the appellant from the membership of the respondent Institute for a period of five years.The appellant filed a review petition before the High Court for review of the aforesaid order. The said review petition was also dismissed by the High Court. On appeal before the Supreme Court ,allowing the petition the Court held that where Council of Chartered Accountants of India finds any member of Institute to be guilty of misconduct, it is required under Act to forward matter to High Court with its recommendations and High Court has to pass final order either dismissing complaint or penalizing member of Institute. However, recommendation/order of Council should contain reasons for conclusion as recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice and every judicial/quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons to be recorded in writing to ensure transparency and fairness in decision making process . Therefore, where Council found appellant chartered accountant to be guilty of professional misconduct, however, recommendations made by Council were not supported by independent reasons and High Court had accepted recommendations of Council without applying its own logic to this aspect of matter, matter was to be remanded to Council to reconsider matter afresh after granting appellant an opportunity of being heard. Matter remanded.

The appellant is  a chartered accountant having his Office as Dinesh K. Agrawal & Co., Chartered Accountants. Information was received by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) from the Office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of the Income-tax alleging that the appellant was guilty of professional and/or other misconduct and had interpolated assessee’s copies of challans to show higher figures and claimed the higher amount from them. Accordingly, ICAI referred the case of the appellant to the Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Council accepted the Report of the Disciplinary Committee and found that the appellant was guilty of ‘other misconduct’ under section 22 read with section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.The Council also decided to recommend to the High Court that the name of the appellant be removed from the Register of Members for a period of two years. The High Court, on consideration of the reference, confirmed the Resolution of the Council that the appellant was guilty of ‘other misconduct’ warranting appropriate punishment and, therefore, ordered the removal of the name of the appellant from the membership of the respondent Institute for a period of five years.The appellant filed a review petition before the High Court for review of the aforesaid order. The said review petition was also dismissed by the High Court. On appeal before the Supreme Court ,allowing the petition the Court held that where Council of Chartered Accountants of India finds any member of Institute to be guilty of misconduct, it is required under Act to forward matter to High Court with its recommendations and High Court has to pass final order either dismissing complaint or penalizing member of Institute. However, recommendation/order of Council should contain reasons for conclusion as recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice and every judicial/quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons to be recorded in writing to ensure transparency and fairness in decision making process . Therefore, where Council found appellant chartered accountant to be guilty of professional misconduct, however, recommendations made by Council were not supported by independent reasons and High Court had accepted recommendations of Council without applying its own logic to this aspect of matter, matter was to be remanded to Council to reconsider matter afresh after granting appellant an opportunity of being heard. Matter remanded.