RAKESH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the facts and the issues involved are similar in nature I proceed to dispose of both the writ petitions by this. common judgment/order.

(2.) The petitioner herein is a Fellow Member of the Institute of Cost arid Works Accountants of India. He was appointed as Cost Auditor of respondent No.3 by _respondent No.2 for the periods 1995-96 and even thereafter. ' The respondent No.3 by a letter dated 15.12.1999 submitted the name of the petitioner for appointment as Cost Auditor of respondent No.3 in the prescribed form for approval of the Central Government in terms of section 233B of the Companies Act. The respondents No.1 & 2 however, by an order dated 4.4.2000 informed the respondent No.3 that the appointment of petitioner as Cost Auditor could not be approved. The respondent No.3 therefore, was called upon to submit a fresh proposal proposing the name of some other Cost Auditor in place of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the aforesaid letter dated 4.4.2000 issued on behalf of respondents 1 & 2 with a further relief seeking a direction to the said respondents 1 & 2 to give approval to the appointment in terms of the request of respondent No. 3.

(3.) The respondents No.l & 2 have filed their counter affidavit contending inter alia that a complaint has been filed by the Government of India (Department of Company Affairs) against the petitioner before the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants India, Calcutta in December, 1998 under section 21 of the Costs and works Accountants Act, 1959, in connection with his professional misconduct during his appointment as Cost Auditor of M/s. Continental Paper Ltd. The allegation is that the petitioner had failed to submit the audit report of the said company inspite of specific instructions from the Government to do so. The said complaint-is pending disposal and in that view of the matter particularly in view of the professional misconduct committed by the petitioner no approval was granted to the proposal of respondent No.3.