Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs Board Of Discipline Icai Thr Secretary And Ors

Court
Delhi High Court

$~10 & 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ 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.

versus

BOARD OF DISCIPLINE ICAI THR SECRETARY AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Ankit Mittal and Mr. Jatin
Dua, Advs. for R-1 and 3.

11
+ W.P.(C) 16424/2023 & CM APPL. 66112/2023

RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Verma, Adv.

versus

BOARD OF DISCIPLINE THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED
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.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
13:06:18
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
(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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
13:06:18
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
13:06:18
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

1
India Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority , 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:
“1. The bench is convened through video conferencing.
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Today, the learned Counsel for the parties concluded their respective
arguments. Judgment is reserved.
4. Interim Order shall remain operative till the delivery of judgment.

Justice Shashi Kant Gupta Praveen Garg
Chairperson Member

Sushil Kumar Anil Satyanarayan Bhandari
Member Member”

(Emphasis supplied)



13. A perusal thereto would indicate that when the parties concluded their

1
2024 SCC OnLine Del 1127
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
13:06:18
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

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
2
Transport Corporation and Anr ., wherein, a five-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court has held as under:
“31. The second objection is that while the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder impose a duty on the State Government to give a personal
hearing, the procedure prescribed by the Rules impose a duty on the
Secretary to hear and the Chief Minister to decide. This divided
responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a
procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing
enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the
witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments,
and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned
argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another


2
1958 SCC OnLine SC 49
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
13:06:18
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We
therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also
offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.”

17. The said decision of the Supreme Court has subsequently been
followed in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated
3
Authority , wherein, the Court has held as under:
“83. The procedure prescribed in the 1995 Rules imposes a duty on the
DA to afford to all the parties, who have filed objections and adduced
evidence, a personal hearing before taking a final decision in the matter.
Even written arguments are no substitute for an oral hearing. A personal
hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the
witnesses, etc. and also clear up his doubts during the course of the
arguments. Moreover, it was also observed in Gullapalli [AIR 1959 SC
308], if one person hears and other decides, then personal hearing
becomes an empty formality.
84. In the present case, admittedly, the entire material had been collected
by the predecessor of the DA; he had allowed the interested parties
and/or their representatives to present the relevant information before
him in terms of Rule 6(6) but the final findings in the form of an order
were recorded by the successor DA, who had no occasion to hear the
appellants herein. In our opinion, the final order passed by the new DA
offends the basic principle of natural justice. Thus, the impugned
notification having been issued on the basis of the final findings of the
DA, who failed to follow the principles of natural justice, cannot be
sustained. It is quashed accordingly.”
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.

3
(2011) 2 SCC 258
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
13:06:18
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

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.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 25, 2026/p




Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
13:06:18
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV