Full Text
W.P.(C) 16324/2023 & CM APPL. 65728/2023
Date of Decision: 25.04.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur and Mr. Shiv Verma, Advs.
Through: Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankit Mittal and Mr. Jatin Dua, Advs. for R-1 and 3.
RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Verma, Adv.
ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankit Mittal and Mr. Jatin Dua, Advs. for R-1 and 3.
KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGMENT
(The matter has been taken up today, as 03.03.2026 was declared as a holiday.)
1. The petitioners in both the petitions are chartered accountants who are governed under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [Act], and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
2. They pray for setting aside a common order dated 19.10.2023, whereby, the petitioners’ appeals against orders dated 30.01.2020 and 11.02.2020 of the Board of Discipline [BoD] were rejected by the Appellate Authority.
3. The impugned action has been taken pursuant to a sting operation conducted by a third-party news agency, alleging that the petitioners had represented that they would legitimize ‘black money’ in return for a commission. The said sting operation was treated to be information under Rule 7 of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigation of Professional Misconduct and other Misconduct and Conduct of the Cases) Rules [Rules], and the charge against the petitioners was that they had brought grave disrepute to the chartered accountant fraternity.
4. The petitioners were, prima facie, found to be guilty in the preliminary inquiry conducted by the concerned authority. Thereafter, the BoD, vide two separate orders dated 26.04.2017, held the petitioners guilty. Further, punishment orders dated 30.05.2017, were passed directing removal of the petitioners’ names from the Register of Members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India [ICAI] for a period of three months and imposition of fines of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each.
5. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority, which were disposed of on 18.10.2018 with directions to the BoD to readjudicate the matter after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing. The BoD, subsequently, passed orders dated 30.01.2020 and 11.02.2020, again finding the petitioners guilty of misconduct and imposing the same punishment. The petitioners' appeals against these orders have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 19.10.2023. The petitioners, therefore, have challenged the entire action before this Court.
6. On 31.07.2024, the Court granted interim stay on the impugned order. However, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit despite having been given various opportunities. Therefore, on 30.01.2026, the concerned Registrar closed their right to file a counter affidavit.
7. Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent nos.[1] and 3, submits that they do not have any role to play.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners confines his submissions to the aspects of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority having been passed by only two members out of the four members who finally heard the final arguments on the appeals.
9. He submits that, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the judgment ought to have been delivered by the very members who heard final arguments and reserved the matter. The opportunity of personal hearing which was granted to the petitioners, otherwise, would be meaningless. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Jindal Films India Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority,[1] and submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground.
10. Further, he submits that as per Rule 13 of the ‘Procedure to be followed for appeals by the Appellate Authority, 2013’ [Procedure], framed under Section 22D(2) of the Act, the quorum of the Appellate Authority for hearing appeals is a minimum of three members including the Chairman. According to him, since the third member who has signed the judgment had not heard final arguments of the parties, the judgment ought to be deemed to have been passed by only two members. Therefore, according to him, the impugned judgment is coram non-judice.
11. The Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, and perused the record.
12. In order to appreciate the petitioner’s case, order dated 06.08.2023 of the Appellate Authorty, when arguments were concluded on behalf of the petitioners, is extracted as under:
13. A perusal thereto would indicate that when the parties concluded their 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1127 final arguments before four members of the Appellate Authority, namely, Justice Shashi Kant Gupta, Chairperson, Mr. Praveen Garg, Mr. Sushil Kumar and Mr. Anil Satyanarayan Bhandari, members.
14. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is also extracted below, for reference: “QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shahsi Kant Gupta Chairperson Hon’ble Mr. Praveen Garg Member Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Tyagee Member”
15. If the impugned judgment passed by the appellate authority is seen, it clearly indicates that it is signed by a total of three members. Two of them, namely, Justice Shashi Kant Gupta and Mr. Praveen Garg had heard the final arguments and had reserved the judgment. Mr. Pankaj Tyagee, who is the third member, however, was not a part of the earlier Bench.
16. The Court finds that the impugned order is vitiated on account of this discrepancy alone. This Court, in Jindal Films India Ltd., has taken note of the decision in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.,[2] wherein, a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under:
17. The said decision of the Supreme Court has subsequently been followed in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority,[3] wherein, the Court has held as under:
18. The petitioners have correctly placed reliance on the deicison in Jindal Films India Ltd. The final judgment in the petitioners’ appeals ought to have been passed by the same members who heard the arguments. Therefore, the Court finds that the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside on this short ground.
19. In view thereof, the submission on behalf of the petitioner with respect to inadequate quorum of the Appellate Authority would merely be an academic exercise and does not require to be looked into.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 stands set aside. The Appellate Authority shall be at liberty to re-hear the petitioners and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
21. The Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations or otherwise. All those aspects are left open to be considered by the Appellate Authority.
22. Petitions stand disposed of.
JUDGE APRIL 25, 2026