Degree Of Proof In Professional Misconduct Cases Is Higher Than Balance Of Probability, But Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court

In relation to disciplinary proceedings involving alleged professional misconduct by a chartered accountant in a complaint filed against the latter 19 years ago, the Delhi High Court said that the degree of proof required is higher than the balance of probabilities, but not as high as the criminal standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt.The chartered accountant had argued that to bring home the guilt of professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, the charges have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, it is the petitioner /Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India argued that proceedings under the Act cannot be equated to criminal proceedings, and the standard of proof would be either balance of probabilities or slightly more, but not beyond reasonable doubt as projected by the respondent chartered accountant. Finding merit in the Council's argument a division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in its order referred to a passage on 'Standard of Proof' in the Halsbury Laws of England, which states that in "civil cases the standard of proof is satisfied on a balance of probabilities", whereas in cases of crime or professional misconduct, a higher degree of proof will be required, though not of a criminal standard.The bench thereafter said, "Thus, in cases of professional misconduct, the degree of proof may be higher than the balance of probabilities, yet the same would not reach the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.The aforesaid passage was also cited by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 609". BackgroundThe Court was hearing a reference made by the petitioner/Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Council) under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (prior to the Amendment Act, 2006) seeking an appropriate order from the Court with respect to its decision to remove a Chartered Accountant (respondent no.1) from the Register of Members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) for a period of one year. The CA/respondent no.1 was found guilty of professional misconduct by a Disciplinary Committee, after a complaint was filed against him in 2005. After considering the disciplinary committee's report, the Council in 2013 recommended the removal of his name from the Register of Members of the ICAI for one year. Thereafter a reference was made to the high court; however in 2017 the court quashed the Council's decision and directed the Council to reconsider the Disciplinary Committee‟s report in its next meeting, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Subsequently the Disciplinary Committee's report was considered afresh after both sides were given an opportunity. Eventually in 2018 the Council accepted the conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee, and held that the respondent no. 1 was guilty of professional misconduct falling within the meaning of clause (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Council further recommended that respondent no. 1‟s name be removed from the Register of Members for a period of one year. Thereafter another reference was moved before the high court in for seeking appropriate orders. FindingsThe CA contended that to prove professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, the charges have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that that the disciplinary enquiries relating to professional misconduct are quasi-criminal in nature and thus they ought to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Council contended that the proceedings under the Act cannot be equated to criminal proceedings and that the standard of proof would be either balance of probabilities or slightly more, but not beyond reasonable doubt. The Court referred to Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Mukesh Gang (2011), where a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that in disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof required to establish a charge is on a preponderance of probabilities and that the charge cannot be equated with the standard of proof in a criminal prosecution where it is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.The bench also referred to the decision of the high court in Lalit Agrawal v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Anr. (2019) where it was held while the standard of proof as required in criminal proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt, the standard of proof as required in disciplinary proceedings under the Act is preponderance of probabilities. It then remarked, "However, as the weight of the authorities indicates, it is higher than preponderance of probabilities, but not as high as beyond reasonable doubt".The CA relied on the case in H.V. Panchaksharappa v. K.G. Eshwar, (2006), where the Supreme Court held that the charge of professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961 must be proved beyond a...

Degree Of Proof In Professional Misconduct Cases Is Higher Than Balance Of Probability, But Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags