Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a Reference application under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 in respect of one Chartered Accountant, Shri B.K. Jha wherein after holding enquiry through disciplinary committee, the Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi has forwarded this matter to this Court after accepting the report of the enquiry committee and after holding that the respondent–Shri B.K. Jha, Chartered Accountant is guilty of professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause (i) of Part II of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and not guilty of other misconduct under Section 21(5) of the Act of 1949. 3. From the statement of facts, submitted before us in this reference petition, it appears that Shri Sanjiv Shekhar, Patna levelled allegation against the respondent that “the respondent was running a bogus office in the name of M/s B.K. Jha & Co. giving the address as that of the Complainant's house/premises at B-163, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 thereby defaming and fraudulently using Complainant's house/premises with ulterior motive. Thus, the Respondent did not get his firm at Patna registered with the ICAI under Regulation 190.” Upon receipt of this complaint, the copy of the complaint was sent to the respondent vide Institute's letter dated 27th July, 1998 and he was asked to submit his written statement, upon which respondent submitted his written statement on 17th August, 1998. The complainant submitted his rejoinder on 1st September, 1999 and thereafter respondent submitted his comment on 12th October, 1999. The Council considered all above documents i.e., complaint, reply and rejoinder and comments of the respondent in its meeting held in June, 2000 at New Delhi. The Council was prima facie of the opinion that respondent was guilty of professional and/or other misconduct and accordingly referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Act of 1949 for enquiry. 4. A meeting of the Disciplinary Committee was convened on 6th August, 2001 at Kolkata. The respondent and five witnesses were present. However, the Committee received telegraphic message from the complainant that since his mother was seriously ill, therefore, he is not in a position to attend the hearing at Kolkata. However, that plea was not accepted by the Disciplinary Committee. In spite of absence of the complainant, the Committee proceeded with the hearing. The respondent and five witnesses were present. However, the Committee received telegraphic message from the complainant that since his mother was seriously ill, therefore, he is not in a position to attend the hearing at Kolkata. However, that plea was not accepted by the Disciplinary Committee. In spite of absence of the complainant, the Committee proceeded with the hearing. The respondent was informed about the Regulation 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. After knowing the Regulation 15(2), the respondent pleaded guilty and the Committee noted plea of guilt and, therefore, hearing was completed. After completion of the proceeding by the Committee in the above referred manner, the Committee submitted its report dated 3rd February, 2002 opining that the respondent is guilty only of the professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause (i) of Part II of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. 5. The copy of the Disciplinary Committee report was forwarded to both the parties vide Institute's letter dated 30th July, 2002 and they were informed that the said report would be considered by the Council at one of its forthcoming meetings. The parties were also directed to submit written representation, if they desire to do so and they were also informed that they may appear before the Council either in person or through the member of the Institute duly authorized by them to make their oral submissions. The parties were also informed that they may appear in the meeting dated 11th - 14th September, 2002 and they were again requested to send their written representation, if any and were requested to appear before the Council in person and may make oral submissions. The complainant did not submit any written representation. However, he appeared before the Council in person and made his oral submissions. The respondent-delinquent Chartered Accountant submitted his written representation dated 4th September, 2002 on the report of the Disciplinary Committee and also appeared before the Council and made his oral submissions. The Council considered all materials before them including written report of the respondent dated 4th September, 2002 and thereafter held the respondent guilty of the professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause (i) of Part II of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and referred the matter to this Court. 6. The Council considered all materials before them including written report of the respondent dated 4th September, 2002 and thereafter held the respondent guilty of the professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause (i) of Part II of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and referred the matter to this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the Institute, Sri R.R. Mishra submitted that since the misconduct of the respondent was falling under Second Schedule, therefore, in view of Clause (V) of Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the matter has been referred to this Court for proceeding as per Sub-Section (6) of Section 21 of the Act of 1949. Learned counsel for the Institute further submitted that the enquiry was conducted even in absence of the complainant and the delinquent-Chartered Accountant unequivocally admitted his guilt and, therefore, on the basis of plea of guilt the Institute has taken a lenient view and has proposed minimum of punishment, which could have been proposed under clause (b) of Section 21 (6) of the Act of 1949 of reprimanding the guilty person. It is also submitted that from the materials available on record, which have been forwarded to this Court, it is clear that the petitioner was running his office at the place which was not notified and duly informed to the Institute and thereby he has violated the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Regulation, 1988 specially Clause (i) of Regulation 190 as well Sub-Clause (7) of Regulation 190. Learned counsel for the Institute further submitted that it is a case of no defence and, therefore, recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee, as accepted by the Council, may be accepted. 7. Learned counsel for the delinquent-Chartered Accountant vehemently submitted that it is an old case of a complaint due to the family rivalry as the complainant is non else than close relative of the respondent. It is submitted that due to the personal grudge this complaint has been lodged. It is also submitted that in fact the respondent did not do any of his work of the chartered accountant at the address where he received some of the correspondence only but that was because of the reason that respondent-delinquent Chartered Accountant, temporarily resided at the given address i.e., in the premise of the complainant's mother and that too for a very short period from February, 1994 to July, 1994. It is submitted that the respondent was not knowing the relevant provision, therefore he could not inform the Institute and there is no other allegation against the respondent. In that situation, in such a old matter the recommendation given by the Disciplinary Committee and the Council may not be accepted and even if accepted then this complaint may be rejected by invoking the power of the High Court under Clause (a) of Section 21(4) of the Act of 1949. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon one Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court delivered in the case of Chief Controller of Exports, New Delhi Vs. G.P. Acharya reported in AIR 1964 Calcutta 178 wherein after setting aside the proposed punishment the High Court directed to administer a severe warning to the delinquent-Chartered Accountant and, therefore, this Court may if not inclined to reject the complaint may pass a lenient punishment order. However, delinquent-respondent submitted that in the facts of the case and particularly in view of passing out of about 18 years of the lodging of the complaint, no punishment be awarded. 8. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed before us and reasons given by the Committee for holding the respondent guilty for the above misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause (i) of Part II of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. After going through the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that not only this is a case of admission of guilt but that admission finds support from the documentary evidence of the respondent himself, which documents have not been disputed by the respondent. The respondent not only before the Disciplinary Committee but also before the Council as well as before this Court admitted the fact that he gave a different address to his clients against which he did not obtain approval from the Institute under The Chartered Accountant Regulation, 1988 particularly as provided in Regulation 190 (1) and as per Clause 4 of Regulation 190 every Chartered Accountant in practice or a firm of such chartered accountants is required to obtain approval for use of office by submitting the appropriate particulars regarding his office or the firm. As per Clause (7) every such chartered accountants if changes his office or the firm as referred to in sub-regulation (4) he is required to inform the council within a period of one month. The respondent did not inform within one month of start of his work at that particular place and he continued his office for four months at the said changed office and the matter came to the knowledge of the Institute only by way of complaint of the complainant. Therefore, so far as the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Committee as approved by the Council is concerned, there is no illegality rather to say is passed on the facts and admission of the respondent. We are of the considered opinion that in that fact situation the complaint of the complainant cannot be rejected. However, a lenient view could have been taken but minimum of the punishment in such a situation is to reprimand the member and, therefore, we are of the view that no less punishment than this could be awarded to the petitioner. However, we are of the considered opinion that this punishment of reprimanding to the respondent will only be an advisory in nature and will be not be treated to be adverse in any manner to the respondent. 9. With these observations, we accept this reference application and hold that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause (i) of Part II of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 as respondent violated clause (4) and Clause (7) of Regulation 190 of the Regulations of 1988 by opening an office at the address B-163, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 and for which, the petitioner is liable to be reprimanded by the Institute. 10. The office of the High Court is directed to forward the certified copy of the order to the Secretary of the Council for necessary as required under Rule 359 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001.