A complaint on CA stating he was engaged as client is filed by individual. verified as individual. complaint is about grievance of a society I. society claims name as I-India. 1991 accounts claimed as branch account audied by CA & audit report do not have words Branch of I or IIndia I or I-India. no proof for I-India as name. no resolution, letter of engagement with complainant, I or I-India filed. CA refused they had ever been client, but report issued to another society IB. IB sent reports on its own to I-India AOP for assessment. no written document for oral AOP. Institute in crypticfinds prima facie guilty orders disciplinary committee enquiry. CA filed evidence of another CA who refused he signed 1st balance sheet claimed by I and deposed it was given to IB. DC lies about interlocuory application filed asking for documentary evidence from complainant and evidence filed by CA. first and only 1 day hearing,case closed.
700 page documents filed on that day by I including IT orders. no time given to reply to it. minutes prove DC did not read 700 pages.
DC made 4 findings.
finding 1 false as per record of institute.
finding 2 regarding name use covered by Reg190 covered as professional misconduct under clause(i)Part II 2 sch, but holds guilty of other misconduct.
finding 3 states even if 2 balance sheet signed for IB is misconduct whereas institute issued guidance note for revision of account & audit report, when case filed was 1 balance sheet given to I, modified and issued to IB. finding 3 proves I lost case and no balance sheet exist of I for 1991.
finding 4 states 1988 to 2000, I balance sheet and IB balance sheet seems from same books of account. this finding is borrowed from IT order to which CA is not party.
none of balance sheet filed by I, has 'branch' or 'I' or 'I-India' name.
Civil court (in suit b/w I &IB) finds I could not prove branch existed. DC ignores finding of binding civil court.
DC report leaked to complainant, Reg16(2) provides only CA to be given report.
complainant issues defamatory media release maligning CA, with lies not part of report.
What are remedies to CA writ to quash/re-enquiry, defamation suit, injunciton etc.? whether writ remedy for denovo enquiry & quashing proceeding u/A 226, 227 available to CA? fundamental rights violation occurred u/A 14, 19, 20 & 21?
