JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Swarup, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned counsel for Union of India. 2. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.9.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the learned Authority has affirmed the order of Board of Discipline dated 03.02.2011, in terms of which the petitioner was awarded punishment of removal of his name from the register of Member of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for a period of one month. The Board of Disciplinary Committee held the petitioner guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of clause (9) of Part I of the First Schedule under Section 21(3) of Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006 and awarded him punishment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Agra Club Ltd. is a company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The said company issued AGM dated 20.12.2006. Item no. 3 of the said notice read "open to appoint auditor and fix their remuneration"(the retiring auditor being eligible for reappointment and offer themselves for reappointment). M/s Farsaiya and Company was the retiring auditor of Company as per the notice of AGM. The Company in its AGM held on 30.12.2006 appointed the petitioner as Auditor of the company. The minutes of the AGM shows that the Company has not complied with the provisions of Section 225 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent no. 4 Dr. Suresh Chandra Gupta wrote a letter to the Company bringing the fact of violation of Section 225 of the Companies Act, 1956. According to the complainant the petitioner had full knowledge of the fact that his appointment as Auditor has been made without compliance of the provisions of Section 225 of the Companies Act. The respondent no.1, on consideration of the same, agreed with the prima facie opinion of the Director and decided to proceed further under Chapter IV of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007. The Board also directed that in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, prima facie opinion formed by the Director be sent to the petitioner and respondent no. The Board also directed that in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, prima facie opinion formed by the Director be sent to the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and the petitioner be asked to submit his written statement within 21 days in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 2007. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his written statement dated 12.05.2009. The petitioner admitted that no special notice was given, however, since the proposal to remove the auditor was proposed in AGM itself, therefore, no special notice was given, but the Board did not agree with the contention of the petitioner as in the notice of AGM, item 3 mentioned "to appoint auditor and fix their remuneration (the retiring auditor being eligible for re-appointment offer themselves for reappointment)", meaning thereby there was no agenda item to appoint any auditor other than the retiring auditor. 4. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 held the petitioner guilty of professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause (9) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006 vide order dated 03.12.2010 and awarded punishment of removal of his name from the register of Members of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for a period of one month. The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal before the respondent no. 2. In the appeal, the petitioner admitted that he did not dispute the finding given by the Board of Discipline about his committing professional misconduct as defined under clause (9) of Part 1 of First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act and his only argument was that the punishment awarded to him was harsher in nature and instead of awarding him punishment of removal of his name from the Register for a period of one month, a reprinted as a Chartered Accountant since 1978 and looking at his long standing, the punishment awarded to him be diluted. The petitioner had admitted that his conduct of accepting the appointment as a statutory auditor was in violation of Section 225 of the Companies Act and in violation of provisions of Chartered Accountants Act. The petitioner had admitted that his conduct of accepting the appointment as a statutory auditor was in violation of Section 225 of the Companies Act and in violation of provisions of Chartered Accountants Act. Instead of taking leniency of the argument of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that if a Chartered Accountant in profession for more than 30 years ventures to Act contrary to the provision of the Companies Act and Chartered Accountants Act, there must be some ulterior motives behind it. The career of the petitioner was unblemished and spotless, therefore, he prayed that the punishment awarded to him be modified with a censure that he shall be careful in future in observing the high tradition and best standards of the noble profession of Chartered Accountants. 5. The learned Appellate Authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that he, being in practice since 1978, i.e., more than 30 years ventures to Act contrary to the provision of the Companies Act and Chartered Accountant Act, there must be some ulterior motives behind it and observed that every Chartered Accountant is bound to know these statutory provisions of the Companies Act and Chartered Accountants Act. If a Chartered Accountant pleads that he was not aware of these provisions or he was swayed by a report of Company Secretary about compliance of Section 225 of the Companies Act and he himself did not ensure that compliance of Section 225 of the Companies Act, this itself is unprofessional conduct on his part and dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Lodha Vs. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and others, reported in AIR 1997 Calcutta 113 and has submitted that in identical circumstances, where Members of Executive Council found misconduct, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court modified the punishment awarded to the petitioner therein by substituting the same with censure that he shall be careful in future in observing the high traditions and best standards of the noble profession of Chartered Accountants. It is also submitted that as writ petition was pending, therefore, no notification has been issued by the authority concerned and looking to the fact that the order was passed in the year 2011 and matter is pending 7-8 years and the petitioner has suffered a lot, therefore, the aforesaid order impugned dated 24.9.2011 may be modified with censure that the petitioner shall be careful in future. 7. In reply, Sri Vinod Swarup, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has drawn our attention to the order passed by the respondent no.1 and 2 and has submitted that concurrent finding has been recorded by the Board and Appellate Authority and petitioner has failed to make out any ground that the punishment so awarded to him is too harsh. He has further submitted that the decision taken by the respondent nos.1 and 4 are based on material facts and in consonance with law applicable therein. He has also submitted that punishment can be imposed to the extent of removal of name of petitioner from the register for a period of three months but the learned Authority has sympathetically considered the case of the petitioner and awarded him punishment of removal of his name from the register for a period of one month only, therefore, the order passed by the respondent no. 2 is just and proper. In respect of the case of Calcutta High Court (Supra), he has submitted that the member involved therein was a Chartered Accountant and was a new entrant to the profession and not having much experience at the time when the misconduct was committed, therefore, Calcutta High Court has taken lenient view but in the present case, the petitioner has already completed 28 years in the profession when the misconduct was committed, therefore, said judgement is not applicable in the matter of petitioner and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In the case in hand, complaint was made by the respondent no. 4 on 20.11.2007 and it took for about three years by the Council to hold the petitioner, prima facie, guilty and as it was only on 03.12.2010 such finding was recorded by the Council and the Board of Discipline passed the order of punishment on 03.02.2011, thereafter, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 24.09.2011. 4 on 20.11.2007 and it took for about three years by the Council to hold the petitioner, prima facie, guilty and as it was only on 03.12.2010 such finding was recorded by the Council and the Board of Discipline passed the order of punishment on 03.02.2011, thereafter, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 24.09.2011. Due to interim protection granted by this Court, no notification was issued and Authorities concerned passed the order impugned. As per Sub-clause 3 of Section 21-A of Chartered Accountants Act 1949, "if any member is found guilty of professional or any misconduct mentioned in the First Schedule of Part I, the Board of Discipline may first reprimand the member meaning thereby the member may be rebuked severely for his misdeeds. The Board of Discipline has the second option to impose fine as it may think fit, in the given facts and circumstances of each case. The Board of Discipline has also the power to remove the member from the register up to a period three months." 9. The disciplinary authority, while imposing the punishment on the petitioner, recorded categorical finding that the misconduct of the Chartered Account does not qualify for the maximum sentence and ends of justice shall be met if a lighter punishment is awarded to the petitioner and directed the respondent no.2 to remove the name of petitioner from the Register of members for a period of one month, which itself by no means can be said to be lighter punishment, i.e., punishment provided under sub-section (3) of Section 21-A of the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006. It is also not disputed that the career of the petitioner was unblemished and spotless and he was in the profession of Chartered Accountant since 28 years, therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has already suffered a lot. He has been made to face the agony of the penal proceedings since 2007. We, therefore, without disturbing the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is guilty of committing professional misconduct, modify the punishment awarded to him by substituting the same with a censure that he shall be careful in future in observing the high tradition and best standards of the noble profession of the Chartered Accountants. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in part. The order of Appellate Authority dated 24.09.2011 is modified to the extent indicated above. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in part. The order of Appellate Authority dated 24.09.2011 is modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.