logoledger
BOD 643/2022Removal

A full-time practitioner also worked as a government welfare body's finance chief. No permission was ever sought.

7 min readJainam Shah

A full-time practitioner also drew a salary as a state welfare society's finance chief, without the Council's permission. The Board found him guilty and removed his name from the Register for a month.

Held
RemovalGuilty of professional misconduct
Forum
Board of Discipline (First Schedule)
Clauses
Item (11) of Part I of the First Schedule
Decided
punished
File no.
PR/29/2020/DD/66/2020/BOD/643/2022
Source
Original order (PDF)

A Patna chartered accountant built a full-time practice while also drawing a salary as the finance chief of a state government welfare society for close to a decade.1 Another chartered accountant complained to the Institute that he had never given up either role for the other.

What happened#

A Patna chartered accountant qualifies and takes a full-time certificate of practice, building an independent practice in the city.
Around a decade later he takes up a salaried post as chief financial officer of a state government welfare society working under Bihar's rural livelihoods programme. He keeps his certificate of practice active and does not approach the Council for permission to hold the second post.
The society's own staff records and its website list him as a full-time chief financial officer. A fellow chartered accountant complains to the Institute that a practising member is also drawing a government salary.
Given several chances to produce his appointment letter, employment contract, salary slips or tax records, he produces none of them. At the hearing his counsel admits the facts, explains that giving up the certificate slipped through amid work pressure, and says he has since surrendered both the certificate and his Institute membership.
The Board finds him guilty of holding an unapproved second occupation. Months later, without his appearance, a differently composed Board removes his name from the Register for a month.

Two things decided the case. The society's own staff list, backed by its official website, recorded him as a full-time chief financial officer — not the contractual, performance-linked role he described. And when asked to show otherwise, he produced nothing: "Despite being given several opportunities, the Respondent failed to produce essential documents such as his appointment letter, employment contract, salary slips, income tax returns or Form 26AS to prove that his engagement was not a full-time job" (para 5). Nor did he ever show that he had asked the Council for permission to take the post, as the clause requires (para 5).

The charge#

A single clause, First Schedule, which is why the Board of Discipline heard the case rather than the Disciplinary Committee.2

A member holding a full-time certificate of practice is expected to give the profession his whole working life. The First Schedule enforces that by forbidding a practising member from taking up any other business or occupation at all — salaried or not — unless the Council has first given permission. The clause does not ask whether the other work was done well, or whether it created a conflict with any client; the violation lies simply in taking it up without asking first.

  • Item (11) of Part I — engaging in any business or occupation other than the practice of accountancy, without the Council's prior permission.3

The Board found the respondent guilty under this clause, read with the Council's own Regulation 190A, and later removed his name from the Register for a month.

What the respondent said#

He did not deny holding both roles. Before the Board, his counsel admitted the facts: he had held the certificate of practice since 2005 and taken up the government post in 2015, but had "inadvertently" failed to surrender the certificate amid work pressure and the demands of the new role (para 5).

She went further to limit the damage. He had done no attestation work and generated no UDIN while employed, held no partnership in any firm, had never applied for the Multipurpose Empanelment Form, and was not empanelled with the CAG, the RBI or any other regulatory body. By the time of the hearing he had surrendered both the certificate and his membership of the Institute, and closed his firm (para 5).

What the Board held#

The Board treated the staff list and the website entry as sufficient proof of full-time employment, with nothing on record to displace them. It held:

This double engagement is in direct violation of Clause (11) of Part-I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, read with Regulation 190A of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 and Appendix (9) of the Code of Ethics, 2009 which clearly prohibits a Chartered Accountant in practice from engaging in any business or occupation other than the profession of Accountancy without the prior approval of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India as this rule is in place to ensure that Chartered Accountants maintain their professional independence, integrity and objectivity (para 6)

The counsel's admission closed the matter beyond argument. The Board recorded that it "concurs with the Prima Facie Opinion of the Director (Discipline) ... that the Respondent engaged himself in another occupation while holding a Full Time Certificate of Practice simultaneously, in violation of Clause (11) of Part-I of the First Schedule" (para 7).

The order#

At the punishment stage, given a fresh opportunity to be heard, the respondent wrote in by email rather than appearing. His letter said his role had been "time bound and on contract basis," pointed to a Bihar government circular he said permitted chartered accountants to retain their certificate while in government service, and asked to be spared: "It was neither intentional nor deceitful. It was a comprehension aspect and I have surrendered my CoP as well as membership of the institute considering the highest regard I have for it." He did not appear on the date fixed to be heard, and the Board proceeded ex parte against him on that account too, before ordering:

the Board hereby resolves to remove the name of [the Respondent] from the Register of Members for a period of one (1) month.4

A month's removal sits above a reprimand on the Board's scale of punishment, and below the longer removals and fines the Board can also impose.5 By the time it was passed, the respondent had already told the Board he had given up both his certificate and his Institute membership. The Board that passed punishment was not the one that found him guilty.6

Why it matters#

This section is ours, not the Board's.

"Full-time" in a certificate of practice means exactly that. Taking up a salaried post elsewhere needs the Council's permission before you start, not an explanation once a complaint arrives. Apply for permission first, and keep the approval on file.

Keep the paperwork that proves your role, not just your account of it. He had no appointment letter, contract, salary slip, tax return or Form 26AS to show his job wasn't full-time. Keep that paper trail from day one of any outside engagement.

A certificate of practice does not lapse on its own. He held his for years after taking the salaried post and called the delay inadvertent. Surrender it the moment it stops applying, rather than treating the surrender as something to mention once a complaint is already filed.

Non-appearance forfeits the benefit of the doubt twice over. He skipped the hearing on guilt and the hearing on punishment alike, and the Board decided both without him in the room. Respond within the time you are given, even to proceedings you expect to lose.

This summarises a public order and links the primary source. It is general information, not legal or professional advice.

Footnotes#

  1. CA. Kumar Hari Ji (M. No. 057882), of Patna, was the complainant. CA. Ranjit Kumar (M. No. 405529), also of Patna, was the respondent — the practitioner who was simultaneously employed as chief financial officer of "JEEViKA," the Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society, a Government of Bihar organisation. ↩

  2. First Schedule matters go to the Board of Discipline; Second Schedule matters, and matters falling under both, go to the Disciplinary Committee. The two carry very different punishment ceilings. ↩

  3. Item (11) of Part I of the First Schedule bars a member holding a Certificate of Practice from engaging in any business or occupation other than the profession of chartered accountancy, unless the Council has given permission. Regulation 190A of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 and Appendix (9) of the Code of Ethics, 2009 set out the same requirement in more detail. ↩

  4. The order names the respondent in this sentence; the original reads "the Board hereby resolves to remove the name of CA. Ranjit Kumar (M.No.405529) from the Register of Members for a period of one (1) month." Nothing else on this page alters the source text. ↩

  5. Section 21A(3) gives the Board a graduated set of punishments: reprimand, removal of the name from the Register for a period, and a fine. Removal sits above a reprimand. Check the current sub-section before relying on any figure or ceiling — these have been amended over time. ↩

  6. The findings were signed by CA. Rajendra Kumar P (Presiding Officer) and Ms. Dolly Chakrabarty (Government Nominee) alone. Punishment, under Section 21A(3) read with Rule 15(1), was passed by a three-member Board of CA. Rajendra Kumar P, Ms. Dolly Chakrabarty and CA. Priti Savla. ↩

Written by Jainam Shah. Found guilty under Item (11) of Part I of the First Schedule; the Board ordered a removal. General information, not legal or professional advice — read the order itself before relying on it.

More orders

BOD 749/2024Not guiltyItem (2) Part IV

A co-author republished two shared textbooks under a sole byline. The publisher never came to contest it.

A chartered accountant co-wrote two textbooks with a publisher, then republished them under his own name. By the hearing the publisher had shut, and the Board found a civil dispute, not misconduct.

BOD 768/2024Not guiltyItem (8) Part I

An incoming auditor was accused of taking two audits without writing first. A 2018 email showed the letter had gone.

An incoming auditor took over a client's VAT and tax audits. Nobody proved the complainant had ever held the VAT work, an old email settled the tax audit, and both charges failed.

BOD 819/2025Not guiltyItem (2) Part IV

A cooperative director was accused of misusing a government yarn-bank grant, and repaid it before the ruling.

A chartered accountant on a cooperative's board was accused of misusing a ₹50 lakh government grant. He repaid the shortfall before the ruling, and the Board found no evidence of personal misuse.