ssp 1 WP (L) 1188 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1188 OF 2011 CA Vithal Umanath Gangolli .....Petitioner versus M/s.Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Ram Upadhyay i/by Law Competere Consultus , for the petitioner. Ms.Usha Shrivastava i/by Consulta Juris, for respondent No.1. Mr.D.D.Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr.A.S.Doctor i/by Kanga & Co., for respondent No.2. Mr.Rajinder Kumar with Mr.D.P.Singh, for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 10 th AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner who is a partner of a firm of Chartered Accountants, has prayed that respondent No.2 i.e. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, may be directed to permit the petitioner to examine his witnesses under the relevant rules i.e. Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and other Misconduct and Conduct of cases) Rule, 2007. It is also prayed that respondent No.2 may be directed not to pronounce punishment order against the petitioner. The petitioner is subjected to proceedings under ssp 2 WP (L) 1188 of 2011 the Act on the allegations of professional misconduct. The proceedings were initiated in view of the complaint filed by respondent No.1 Bank. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The disciplinary Committee of the respondent No.2 Institute completed the enquiry and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has acted recklessly while performing his duties and he did not exercise due diligence and failed to obtain sufficient information and to invite attention to the material departure from the accounting policies. The disciplinary committee accordingly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of Part I of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. A copy of the said report was also made available to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner also gave reply to the report of the disciplinary committee in the form of written statement on 28-03-2008. The petitioner thereafter, before awaiting final decision in this behalf, has rushed to this Court by way of this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has also given his reply and pointed out that he is innocent and he would like to examine witnesses in his defence. The petitioner has rushed to this Court at the stage where no final order has been passed. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted list ssp 3 WP (L) 1188 of 2011 of witnesses and at that stage, he was told by the disciplinary committee that he may curtail the number of witnesses and accordingly, the petitioner was not allowed to examine his witnesses. He further submitted that the enquiry is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that appropriate opportunity was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to submit names of witnesses. He further submitted that even the Institute asked the petitioner on 24-03-2010 to produce appropriate evidence, to which the petitioner informed the the Institute that since he had given list of witness, he would like to examine those witnesses. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case. He submitted that in any case, petitioner is going to be heard before taking any final decision, as contemplated under Rule 19 and this Court may not exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this interlocutory stage. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the petition and its accompaniments. It is required to be noted that the disciplinary committee has already arrived a conclusion and now final decision is required to be taken as per Regulation 18(17). The disciplinary committee is required to consider the evidence ssp 4 WP (L) 1188 of 2011 and documents produced before it and require to pass final order in connection with punishment. The conclusion is already arrived at as pointed out earlier. Regulation 19 provides as under : - 19. Orders of the Committee : (1) On arriving at a finding under sub-Rule (8) or sub-rule (17) of Rule 18 that the respondent is guilty of professional or other misconduct, the Committee shall give the respondent an opportunity to be heard before passing any order under sub-Section (3) of Section 21B of the Act. Provided that if the respondent does not appear before the Committee at the time directed to do so when given such an opportunity to be heard, the Committee shall presume that he has nothing more to represent before it and shall pass orders under sub-section (3) of Section 21B of the Act. (2) On arriving at a finding under sub-rule 17 of rule 18 that the respondent is not guilty of professional or other misconduct, the Committee shall pass orders closing the case. (3) The Committee shall send, free of charge, to the Director, respondent and the complainant, a certified copy of the final order. 5. It is not in dispute that an opportunity under Regulation 19 is given to the petitioner and if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the findings of the disciplinary committee, it is always open to the petitioner to raise such points before the disciplinary committee under Regulation 19. It is not in dispute that no final order is passed by the disciplinary committee and the final decision under Regulation 19 is still awaited. The petitioner is entitled to put his grievance if any, before the ssp 5 WP (L) 1188 of 2011 disciplinary committee as per Regulation 19. It is not in dispute that no final decision in this behalf is taken by inflicting or passing punishment order against the petitioner. In view of the same, we would not like to interfere with the pending proceeding before the disciplinary committee at such an interlocutory stage. It will be open to the petitioner to point out his grievances before the disciplinary committee, as he has already filed written statement in this behalf. It is needless to state that the disciplinary committee at the time of passing final order under Regulation 19, may consider whatever objections raised by the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law under Regulation 19, which we have incorporated above. Suffice it to say that this Court would not like to exercise its extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at an interlocutory stage where the proceedings are yet not finally terminated by way of final punishment order. The petitioner has got an opportunity to submit its say as per Regulation 19 and the reply/say of the petitioner may be taken into consideration by the disciplinary committee as provided under Regulation 19. The petitioner has got right of appeal against the order of the disciplinary committee and the petitioner can take all available points in accordance with law even before the appellate authority. In view of the same, the petition is not required to be entertained at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to raise all available ssp 6 WP (L) 1188 of 2011 points as provided under Regulation 19 before the disciplinary committee. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion in any manner and it is for the disciplinary committee to consider the say of the petitioner as per Regulation 19. Even if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he can take all points raised in the petition before the appellate authority. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein this Court had interfered with the pending proceedings at an interlocutory stage. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the facts of that case was different. He submitted that on the facts of this case, the judgment of the Division Bench is distinguishable. Since we have permitted the petitioner to take all available points before the disciplinary committee and the disciplinary committee to pass order after hearing the petitioner before passing final punishment order and we would not like to intercept the proceedings at this stage. It is not the mandate that the High Court is bound to interfere at an interlocutory stage when the proceedings are at large before the disciplinary committee. 7. Considering the said aspect, we are of the view that the matter is not required to be entertained by us at such an interlocutory stage, as the petitioner can agitate his grievance before the disciplinary committee as contemplated under Regulation 19 and can even raise all ssp 7 WP (L) 1188 of 2011 available points before the appellate authority. The writ petition is therefore, rejected, having not entertained at this stage. Notice discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )