JUDGMENT This is a reference by Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India under section 21 (5) and (6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 whereby respondent M/s. K.C. Kosha1 and Company, Chartered Accountants has been recommended to be punished with reprimand. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this reference are that respondent M/s. K.C. Koshal and Company Chartered Accountants had three Articled Clerks who filed a complaint before the President of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to the effect that they were not paid stipend by M/s. K.C. Koshal & Company Chartered Accountants. The matter was taken up by the President of the Institute and he referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee, after recording statements of the parties and perusing the record, found that the respondent was guilty of not paying stipend to Articled Clerks Shri H.C. Gupta, M.K. Jain and A.K. Sinha during the period of their training upto June 1982. It was found that Shri K.C. Koshal was guilty of professional misconduct under section 21 read with section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and clause (i) of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Act. The matter was placed before the Council of the Institute in its meeting held on 3/5th August, 1987. The Council of the Institute confirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Committee and referred the matter to this Court for passing necessary orders as required under sub-section (5) of section 21 of the Act of 1949. Under sub-section (5) of section 21 of the Act of 1949, the Council of the Institute has to forward the papers to the High Court with its recommendation thereon. Sub-section (6) of section 21 of the Act of 1949 provides that on so receiving the recommendation by the High Court, it shall issue notice to the affected parties and after hearing them, can dismiss the complaint, reprimand the member, or remove him from membership of the Institute either permanently or for such period as the High Court thinks fit, or refer the case to the Council for further inquiry and report. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Nema, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the very Articled Clerks had subsequently withdrawn the complaint. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Nema, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the very Articled Clerks had subsequently withdrawn the complaint. He also submitted that the registers were also produced before the Disciplinary Committee to show that the payments were subsequently made. Learned counsel took us through the evidence and pointed out that the Disciplinary Committee has not looked into the entire statement of M/s. K.C. Koshal and Company and has gone wrong in arriving at the conclusion. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and we are of the opinion that the finding of fact which has been arrived at by the Disciplinary Committee and confirmed by the Council of the Institute by resolution dated 3/5th August, 1987 cannot be interfered with by this Court unless the finding is perverse. We have given our anxious consideration to the factual aspect of the matter and we are of the opinion that there is no perversity in arriving at the finding of fact by the two authorities below. However, the respondent has already been recommended a punishment of reprimand, which, in our opinion, in the circumstances of the present case, is a very lenient approach by the Council of the Institute. In the present case, the Council of the Institute has only recommended for punishing the respondent with reprimand. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as we have already observed, the Council of the Institute has taken a very lenient view; therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the punishment. Consequently, we accept the reference and hereby confirm the punishment of reprimand recorded by the Council of the Institute against M/s. K.C. Koshal and Company Chartered Accountants.