Dr. M.P. Desarda, of Pune, Indian Inhabitant, having his v. Shri M.B.Bafna

Shri M.B.Bafna. After holding enquiry, disciplinary committee submitted report recording therein opinion respondent guilty "other misconduct" within meaning section 22 section 21(1) Chartered Accountants Act,

1949. The report disciplinary committee placed before Council Institute Chartered Accountants India. The report disciplinary committee supplied both, complainant respondent. The Council concurred opinion disciplinary authority respondent guilty "other misconduct" within meaning section 22 section 21(1) Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 accordingly, recommended name of the respondent be removed from the register of members for a period of one month.

We carefully examined the entire record available with us.

The complaint founded cassette 3 containing conversation between complainant delinquent. Even examination complainant concerned ITO Shri Khedkar broadly cassette tape. We constrained observe though disciplinary committee observed various places report evidence emerged before course hearing a matter consideration matter including evidence disciplinary committee cassette tape. The entire consideration matter disciplinary committee paragraphs 25 35 report submitted council virtually ground observations paragraph 24 report. In paragraph 24 report, disciplinary committee recorded difficult deciphering recorded conversation further difficult recognising clearly parties. If so, cassette worthless material served purpose, purposes corroboration. As already indicated disciplinary committee observed us, proceeded evidence though parties consideration report, disciplinary committee considering evidence influenced 4 veracity evidence touchstone cassette cassette tested disciplinary committee itself sure about the voices in the tape and was not able to decipher fully the tape recorded conversation.

In circumstances, necessary matter length as, considered view, finding recorded disciplinary authority holding complainant guilty section 22 ‘other professional misconduct’ section 21(1) Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 is not held to be based on legal evidence.

The Council a perfunctory manner concurred disciplinary committee recommended respondent removed register members a period month. Such perfunctory recommendation Council cannot accepted holding finding disciplinary authority delinquent guilty misconduct under section 22 read with section 21(1) which is based on no legal evidence be accepted. 5

We, accordingly, direct the proceedings to be filed. No costs. J.) (R.M.LODHA, J.) J.) (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.