logoledger
BOD 720/2024Reprimand

A chartered accountant accused a tax officer of taking bribes on WhatsApp. The Board reprimanded the sender.

7 min readJainam Shah

A Faridabad chartered accountant accused a GST officer, by name, of soliciting bribes on a WhatsApp group. He did not deny writing it, and the Board reprimanded him for airing it on social media.

Held
ReprimandGuilty of professional misconduct
Forum
Board of Discipline (First Schedule)
Clauses
Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule
Decided
punished
File no.
PR/87/2021/DD/82/2021/BOD/720/2024
Source
Original order (PDF)

A GST officer in Faridabad found himself called corrupt, by name, in a WhatsApp group of chartered accountants he had never been part of. The chartered accountant who sent the message did not deny sending it — only that the officer deserved it.1

What happened#

A Faridabad chartered accountant runs a private WhatsApp group with other members of the profession, where they trade complaints about the department officials they deal with in practice. One official who comes up in the group is a GST officer posted nearby.
A message about the officer circulates in the group, naming him and accusing him of demanding bribes with confidence and of shaming the department he serves. Someone outside the group is shown the message and passes it on, and it eventually reaches the officer himself.
The officer complains to the Institute that the message is false, frivolous and defamatory. Before the Director (Discipline), the accountant does not deny that the group exists or that the message came out of it. Instead he says the officer had once demanded a payment to accept a client's paperwork, and that the group had refused to pay.
The Board of Discipline weighs the officer's evidence against the accountant's own reply and finds him responsible for circulating the message. It holds that airing an accusation this way, instead of taking it to the officer's superiors, was itself irresponsible, and finds him guilty of misconduct.
At a separate hearing on punishment, the accountant appears by video conference, accepts the findings and asks the Board to be lenient, promising not to repeat the conduct. The Board reprimands him.

Two things decided the case: what the message said, and what the accountant admitted when asked about it.

The order records the message in the group's own transliterated Hindi. Parts of the scanned text are unclear, but its substance is not in dispute: it named the officer and accused him of demanding bribes "with confidence," and of being the kind of officer who shames the country (para 4).

The accountant did not deny writing or forwarding it. What he offered the Director (Discipline) instead was a justification, and a counter-accusation:

"I have not circulated such matter, it was a private WhatsApp group of chartered accountants, where youngsters discuss their routine problems faced during our practice with department officials..."

And, of the officer specifically:

"...on next day he demanded 4000/- for paper acceptance as fee with full confidence without any fear of wrong act. We refused to pay any bribe and return to office."

The charge#

  • Item (2) of Part IV — the First Schedule's general clause for "other misconduct." It has no fixed list of acts; it catches whatever conduct discredits the profession, once the more specific items don't apply.2

The charge as framed also described the accountant as claiming to be the secretary of a local chapter of a different professional body altogether — the Institute of Cost Accountants of India. Nothing in the Board's reasoning turns on that claim; the finding rests entirely on the message itself and on his own reply about it.

What the respondent said#

His defence had two parts. On the message, he said he had not personally circulated it — it belonged to a private group of chartered accountants discussing the problems they faced with department officials, not a public forum.

On the officer, his defence turned into an accusation of its own: that the officer had demanded ₹4,000 to accept paperwork for a client's GST registration, that the group had refused to pay, and that the officer had gone on to harass their clients in Faridabad. He offered to withdraw the allegation without further question if the officer would swear to his own honesty.

What the Board held#

The Board read the evidence the officer produced together with the accountant's own reply to the Director (Discipline), and held:

the evidence produced by the Complainant combined with the reply of the Respondent to the Director (Discipline) and the documents presented proves that the Respondent was responsible for circulating the message. Therefore, the Board while criticizing the conduct of the Respondent for choosing to share and circulate such message through social media instead of not taking the issue to the relevant higher authorities deemed it an irresponsible action on the part of the Respondent... (para 6)

The finding did not turn on whether the bribe allegation was true. It turned on the choice of forum — a WhatsApp group rather than the officer's own department. The Board concluded:

in the considered opinion of the Board, the Respondent is 'GUILTY' of "Other Misconduct" falling within the meaning of Item (2) of Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (para 7)

The order#

At the punishment hearing, the accountant did not contest the finding. He confirmed he had received it, asked the Board to take a sympathetic view, and promised not to repeat the conduct. The Board then held:

Thus, upon consideration of the facts of the case, the consequent misconduct of [the Respondent] and keeping in view his representation before it, the Board decided to Reprimand [the Respondent].3

A reprimand is the lightest punishment the Board can impose.4 The finding was recorded on 30th May 2024; the reprimand followed just over six weeks later, once the accountant had been given the chance to be heard on punishment.5

Why it matters#

This section is ours, not the Board's.

A private group chat is not a private conversation. Once a message names someone and leaves the group, whoever sent it answers for it. Don't put in a group of colleagues what you would not put in a letter to the person it names.

A grievance against an official doesn't excuse defaming one. The Board's finding never turned on whether the bribe accusation was true — only on the choice to air it on social media rather than to the officer's own department. Take a complaint about an official to that official's superiors.

A written explanation to the Director (Discipline) is read as evidence, not just as a defence. The accountant's reply, meant to justify the message, was read alongside it as proof of who had sent it. Treat any written response to a complaint with the same care as the complaint itself.

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

Footnotes#

  1. The complainant, Shri Golden Jain of Faridabad, worked as a GST Officer in the office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Sector-12, Faridabad, and was not a chartered accountant. The respondent was CA. Anil Thakur (M. No. 531601), of Faridabad. ↩

  2. Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 covers "other misconduct" — conduct that discredits the profession but is not captured by the more specific items listed elsewhere in the Schedule. ↩

  3. The order's operative paragraph names the respondent directly, twice: "the consequent misconduct of CA. Anil Thakur (M. No. 531601) and keeping in view his representation before it, the Board decided to Reprimand CA. Anil Thakur (M. No. 531601)." This page substitutes "[the Respondent]" for both; nothing else in the quotation is altered. ↩

  4. Section 21A(3) gives the Board of Discipline a graduated set of punishments, of which a reprimand is the lowest, ahead of removal of the member's name from the Register for a limited period and a fine. Check the current sub-section before relying on any figure — the amounts have been amended over time. ↩

  5. The findings, signed on 30th May 2024 after a final hearing on 7th May 2024 at ICAI Bhawan, New Delhi, were passed by a Board of CA. Rajendra Kumar P (Presiding Officer) and Ms. Dolly Chakrabarty (IAAS, Retd.) (Government Nominee), present in person. The punishment order, passed on 15th July 2024 after a hearing conducted by video conferencing, was signed by the same two members. ↩

Written by Jainam Shah. Found guilty under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule; the Board ordered a reprimand. 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.