The Disciplinary Directorate, the Board of
Discipline, and the Disciplinary
Committee form the foundation of the disciplinary process of the institute. These entities are
quasi-judicial and have substantial powers like that of a
Civil Court to
summon and enforce attendance or require discovery and production of documents on
affidavit or otherwise. The Disciplinary Directorate is headed by an officer designated as Director (Discipline). On receipt of any information or
complaint that a member has allegedly engaged in any
misconduct, the Director (Discipline) shall arrive at a
prima facie opinion whether or not there is any misconduct. If the Director (Discipline) is of the opinion that the misconduct is covered by the items listed in the first schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, he/she shall refer the case to the Board of Discipline. If he/she is of the Opinion that the case is covered by the Second Schedule or both schedules of the CA Act, he/she will refer the case to the Disciplinary Committee. If the Board of Discipline finds a member guilty of professional or other misconduct, it may at its discretion reprimand the member, remove the name of the member from the register of members for up to three months or impose a fine up to 1,00,000/-. If the Disciplinary Committee finds a member guilty of professional or other misconduct, it may at its discretion reprimand the member, remove the name of the member from the register of members permanently or impose a fine up to 5,000/-. Any member aggrieved by any order may approach the
Appellate Authority. It should be borne in mind that this disciplinary proceeding is not in lieu of or an alternative for criminal proceedings in a court. Criminal proceedings against a Chartered Accountant and disciplinary action by ICAI are two separate issues and one need not wait for another to be completed first.
Actions One of the public actions of The ICAI Disciplinary Committee in the 2009–2010 time period was proceedings for professional misconduct against two auditors from the firm
Price Waterhouse partners for wrongly auditing and inflating the financial statements of
Satyam Computer Services Limited. The
Supreme Court of India (November 2010) rejected a plea by the two charged auditors to stay the proceedings by the ICAI Disciplinary committee. The court's order came in response to the pleas of the charged auditors seeking a stay on the disciplinary proceedings against them on the ground that it violated their
fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the
Constitution of India. Other publicized actions included, the
SEBI referred case of a brokerage firm,
Karvy, in which the internal auditors, Haribhakti & Co (an associate of
BDO Global). were held guilty of negligence for failing to detect thousands of demat accounts being opened with the same address. The committee has also taken action against members for alleged irregularities in the books of
Maytas Properties and Maytas Infra and the role played by their auditors. The names of the members found guilty of misconduct are published on ICAI's website. The ICAI website lists 35 as the number of cases in which inquiry was completed by the Disciplinary Committee in the past one year since February 2010. The list of members held guilty of professional or other misconduct is published periodically.
Request for more power Many of the recent financial frauds and scams related to organizations that had multinational accounting firms as their auditors. These multinational firms cannot legally practice in India but they are practicing in India by surrogate means, operating through tie-ups with local firms, though the partners involved are from India, since only a member of the institute can be an auditor of an Indian entity. The example for this is an elaborate list, Price Waterhouse in case of Global Trust Bank Scam, again Price Waterhouse in Satyam Computer Services Limited scam, Ernst and Young in the Maytas case. ICAI lacks jurisdictional powers to punish these or for that matter any firm, as under its current regulations it only has the power to proceed against individual members. The institute has asked the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India to grant additional powers so that it may proceed against firms whose partners or employees are frequent offenders. ICAI also has sent a proposal to the Government of India to amend the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 in order to enable to it to impose a fine of 1,00,00,000/- on audit firms if they are found guilty of colluding with companies to commit a fraud. == Qualification ==