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 .\u00a0 Complainant bank registered a complaint with Director (Discipline), who initially found appellant not guilty of any misconduct .\u00a0 However, Board of Discipline disagreed and decided to refer matter to Disciplinary Committee .\u00a0 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) .\u00a0 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\u00a0 . Court held that\u00a0 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 .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. <\/p>\n
S. 21A :Board of Discipline – Professional misconduct \u2013 Power of Central Government to make rules \u2013 Matter referred to Disciplinary Committee \u2013 Reference is held to be valid \u2013 Apppeal is dismissed . [S. 21A(4),29A(1) Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 , Rule 9(3)(b) ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-c6k","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46520"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46520\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46521,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46520\/revisions\/46521"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}