C A RAJESH V DUDHWALA Vs. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by a Chartered Accountant who is punished by the Council by debarring him from active practice for a period of one year. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority which was headed by none other than a Retired High Court Judge, assisted by three other members, who had to conclude as under:-

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Mr.Shah for the appellant vehemently argued the appeal and took this Court through every single document and at the end of reading of every single document, he repeated his argument /submission that a poor Chartered Accountant is made to suffer a very harsh punishment without there being a communication of specific charge to him and more particularly when the phraseology used for conveying the charge was changed or inter-changed at various stages.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to different parts of different documents and tried to press into service the fine distinction between the term 'negligence' and 'gross negligence' and difference between 'due diligence' and 'gross negligence' and submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge is not able to understand the difference between the two, i.e. the term 'due diligence' and the term 'gross negligence'.