Summary
Rule 9(3) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 was within the Central Government’s rule-making power. Its options for the Board of Discipline when it disagrees with the Director (Discipline) further the Act’s disciplinary purpose and do not create an unauthorized substantive obligation.
Issues
- Whether Rule 9(3) exceeds the rule-making power under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
Provisions considered
- Sections 21A(4) and 29A, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949Although Rule 9(3) provides options beyond those expressly listed in Section 21A(4), it is supported by the general rule-making power to carry out the purposes of the Act. (¶¶ 20, 32-37)
- Rule 9(3), Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007The Board of Discipline may, when it disagrees with the Director (Discipline), proceed itself or refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee, depending on the schedule governing the alleged misconduct. (¶¶ 20, 34-37)
Held
- A rule may be sustained under a general rule-making delegation where it is ancillary to the parent Act’s purposes, even if it is not supported by a particular enumerated head. (¶¶ 21-22, 32-37)
- Rule 9(3), which allows the Board of Discipline to proceed with or refer a complaint when it disagrees with the Director (Discipline), furthers the Act’s disciplinary purpose and falls within Section 29A(1). (¶ 34-38)
Result
The appeal was dismissed.