Full Text
Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
RISHIKESH GAGAN VYAS
SHIV DARSHAN, ‘B’ WING, 1102, AHIMSA MARG, OFF LINK ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI – 400064 .....Petitioner
(Through: Mr. Shaurya Kuthiala, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
1. THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY, ICSI HOUSE, 22, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003
2. THE DIRECTOR (DISCIPLINE)
THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY
22.
INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
3. THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY.
KUMAR KAURAV.....Respondents (Through: Mr.Sangram Patnaik, Mr.Shivam Pal Sharma, Mr.Kunal Malhotra, Ms.Vanya Sharma, Advocates) + W.P.(C) 5439/2021 and CM APPL. 16857/2021 RISHIKESH GAGAN VYAS SHIV DARSHAN, ‘B’ WING, 1102, AHIMSA MARG, OFF LINK ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI – 400064.....Petitioner (Through: Mr. Shaurya Kuthiala, Adv.)
VERSUS
1. THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110003
2. THE DIRECTOR (DISCIPLINE)
3. THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE.....Respondents (Through: Mr.Sangram Patnaik, Mr.Shivam Pal Sharma, Mr.Kunal Malhotra, Ms.Vanya Sharma, Advocates) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV J U D G E M E N T PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. These two petitions relate to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by respondent no. 1-Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI). Respondent no. 3 is the Disciplinary Committee of respondent no. 1-ICSI and has passed the impugned orders dated 09.01.2020, 06.10.2020, and 07.04.2021.
2. The petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 3979/2021 is for setting aside orders dated 09.01.2020 and 06.10.2020, whereby, the petitioner’s applications dated 27.12.2019 and 15.01.2026 have been rejected.
3. Vide application dated 27.12.2019, the petitioner had prayed that respondent no. 3 should summon all persons whose statement/depositions are being relied upon by the complainant in the disciplinary proceedings and he be permitted to cross-examine them, under Rule 18(9) of the Company Secretaries (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’) read with Order IX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, 1908.
4. Vide application dated 15.01.2026, the petitioner had prayed that the depositions/statements or documents of persons who have not been examined by the complainant be struck off from the record. Vide the impugned order dated 06.10.2020, respondent no. 3-Disciplinary Committee has noted that, under Rule 18(14) of the Rules, it is not required to summon any witness if, in its opinion, the request for the same is made for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. It is noted that the petitioner was directed to justify his request for cross-examination of witnesses, but he had not provided any reasons for the same. Therefore, respondent no. 3- Disciplinary Committee formed the opinion that the petitioner was only trying to delay the proceedings. The petitioner was also directed to respond to or file documents against various documents submitted by the complainant. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, he had filed certain documents.
5. In the other petition i.e. W.P.(C) 5439/2021, apart from the reliefs prayed in W.P.(C) 3979/2021, the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 07.04.2021, whereby respondent no. 3 has found him guilty of the charges against him.
6. The impugned orders are challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is entitled, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, to cross-examine all persons whose statements/depositions have been relied on in the disciplinary proceedings. According to him, since his applications dated 27.12.2019 and 15.01.2026 have been rejected by respondent no. 3, principles of natural justice have been violated, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his grievance has been noted by the Court vide its order dated 21.05.2021, whereby, it had formed an opinion that the impugned action was in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the said order has not been challenged by the respondent before the Division Bench.
8. He places great emphasis on the said order and submits that the observations made therein, would fully justify the prayer made herein. Further, reliance is placed on the the decision passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh,[1] to assert that in cases where there is a violation of principles of natural justice, a writ petition would be maintainable. He has specifically placed reliance on paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the said the decisions, which are extracted below, for reference:
9. Further, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Talluri Srinivas v. ICAI,[2] Partha Ghosh v. ICAI,[3] and Naresh Tharad v. ICAI,[4] in this regard.
10. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. According to him, the petition is premature as the Disciplinary Committee is yet to determine the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. He submits that against the imposition of penalty, the petitioner would have an appropriate remedy by way of appeal under Section 22E of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. Judgment dated 13.03.2012 in W.P. (C) 8945/2011
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. It is seen that respondent no.3-Disciplinary Committee, as per Rule 18(14) of the Rules, is not bound to summon witnesses if it is of the opinion that the request for the same is only to delay the proceedings. The case of the plaintiff is that several of the documents relied on against him, suffer from non-application of mind and, therefore, in the interests of natural justice, he is entitled to cross-examine the deponents.
13. In disciplinary proceedings, there is no absolute right to cross examination. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad.[5] In the said case, the Supreme Court was dealing with proceedings under the Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962, and has held as under:
14. The aforesaid decision has also been relied upon by this Court in the case of M/s Nath International Sales v. Union of India and Ors.[6] The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below, for reference: “24. Lastly, it is urged by Mr. Jaitley that the principles of natural justice demand that an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to cross-
1992 SCC OnLine Del 31 examine Mr. S.A. Khan, DLW's Inspector, to elicit the truth as to which of the two inspection reports is genuine. We do not feel persuaded to do so. As is observed by the Supreme Court in State of J & K v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad, AIR 1967 SC 122 (3) a right of hearing does not include a right to cross-examine and the right to cross-examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case. As already observed, there is no difference in both the reports on the crucial point of filing of TRW's test certificate, which is sufficient to support respondents action.”
15. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decisions in Talluri Srinivas, Partha Ghosh, and Naresh Tharad is misplaced. The Court, in the said decisions has nowhere recognized any absolute right of cross examination in departmental proceedings. In fact, in the decision in Talluri Srinivas, the Court has specifically held that no such right exists. Paragraph 44 of the said decision is extracted below, for reference:
16. So far as the submissions that on the facts of this case, principles of natural justice required that the petitioner be allowed to cross-examine all persons whose statement are relied on by the complainant, the same cannot be accepted. The petitioner was called upon by respondent no. 3- Disciplinary Committee to file documents and written submissions to refute the same and the petitioner claims to have filed certain documents thereafter. The petitioner, therefore, could not have raised any objections with respect to the alleged infirmity in the remaining documents. Further, he was also given an opportunity to examine his own witnesses upon providing precise reasons. Since, as per the Committee, there was no justifiable reason to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant-witnesses, therefore, right of cross-examination has been denied.
17. More importantly, in the order dated 09.01.2020, it is expressly recorded that the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on behalf of the complainant, upon incurring all costs towards their attendance. However, vide application dated 15.01.2020, the petitioner has equivocally asserted that the costs for procuring the attendance of witnesses relied on by the complainant ought to be borne by the latter.
18. Considering that the petitioner does not have any absolute right to cross examination, the fact that he was given sufficient opportunity to crossexamine witnesses at his own costs, and he was given an opportunity to file evidence in response to the documents of the complainant, the principles of natural justice do not seem to have been violated.
19. Another aspect that requires to be noted is that, at present, vide order dated 07.04.2021, the petitioner has only been found guilty of the charges against him. Under Section 21B of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, prior to taking any action against the petitioner, he shall be given an opportunity of hearing. Further, under Section 22E thereof, he may prefer an appeal against any penalty that may be imposed by the Disciplinary Committee under Section 21B before the Appellate Authority. In view thereof, there does not seem to be any justification for piecemeal adjudication, first, at the stage of forming an opinion of guilt and thereafter, in the appeal against any penalty that may be imposed.
20. The statute, under Section 22E, provides for appeal only against the final order passed under Section 21B. The petitioner, therefore, shall be at liberty to raise all objections once the final order is passed.
21. With the aforesaid, the petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands deposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 16, 2026/aks/amg