Appellant, a member of an audit firm, was involved in auditing work for a bank . Some suspicious transactions occurred in bank’s branch, but they were not flagged by audit firm .  Complainant bank registered a complaint with Director (Discipline), who initially found appellant not guilty of any misconduct .  However, Board of Discipline disagreed and decided to refer matter to Disciplinary Committee .  Appellants challenged action of Board in High Court via a writ petition, seeking to declare rule 9(3)(b) of Rules, 2007 invalid on ground that this rule was ultra vires section 21A(4) .  However, Division Bench of High Court rejected this challenge and upheld validity of rule 9(3)(b) of Rules, 2007 – Rule 9(3) provided additional option to Board for proceeding to deal with complaint by itself or referring it to Disciplinary Committee  . Court held that  rule 9(3)(b) is completely in sync with object and purpose of framing Chapter on ‘Misconduct’ under Act . Further, even if rule 9(3) could not be saved under section 29A(2)(c), it directly related to furthering purposes of Act in ensuring that a genuine complaint of professional misconduct against member was not wrongly thrown out at very threshold and therefore, impugned rule fell within scope of general delegation of power under section 29A(1) . Appeal is dismissed .