--- title: A newspaper greeting called a Branch Chairman "Adhyaksh." An advocate read that as a claim to the ICAI presidency. description: A newspaper greeting used a Hindi word for a Branch Chairman that can mean "President." An advocate complained it claimed the ICAI presidency; the Board found no evidence and cleared every clause. case_number: BOD 746/2024 file_number: PR/75/2017/DD/102/2017/BOD/746/2024 forum: board-of-discipline institute: icai decided_on: 2025-09-26 outcome: Not guilty clauses: Item (5) of Part I of the First Schedule; Item (6) of Part I of the First Schedule; Item (7) of Part I of the First Schedule; Item (3) of Part III of the First Schedule; Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule order_pdf: https://disc.icai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/13.-BOD-746-2024.pdf published: 2026-09-07 author: Jainam Shah keywords: bod 746 2024, item 5 part i first schedule, item 6 part i first schedule, item 7 part i first schedule, item 3 part iii first schedule, item 2 part iv first schedule, solicitation of professional work, advertising professional attainments, newspaper advertisement chartered accountant, board of discipline not guilty source: /icai/board-of-discipline/bod-746-2024 --- # A newspaper greeting called a Branch Chairman "Adhyaksh." An advocate read that as a claim to the ICAI presidency. A Branch Chairman paid a Hindi newspaper to print a Republic Day greeting in his name. An advocate who read it complained that the wording amounted to a false claim on the presidency of ICAI itself.[^parties] ## What happened ```timeline A chartered accountant serving as a Branch Chairman pays a Hindi daily newspaper to publish a Republic Day greeting message under his name, using a photograph taken from the Branch's own website. The published greeting carries the Hindi word for the position he holds, but without the words identifying which branch. On its own, that Hindi word can mean either "Chairman" or "President." An advocate reads the greeting and takes it to mean the Chairman is holding himself out as the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India nationally, rather than as a chairman of one branch. He also says he saw the same wording posted on the Chairman's Facebook page. The advocate complains to ICAI. The Director (Discipline) forms a prima facie opinion that the wording amounts to advertising professional attainments, soliciting work, giving false information and bringing disrepute to the profession, across five separate items of the First Schedule. At the hearing, the advocate does not appear and produces no evidence. The Chairman explains that the missing branch reference was the newspaper's error, not his, and that the Hindi word is genuinely ambiguous. The Board finds nothing to show he wrote or approved the wording, and closes every one of the five charges against him. ``` Two facts, both undisputed, shaped the outcome. The Chairman had personally paid the newspaper five thousand rupees for the greeting — he said so himself, because such spending could not be charged to Institute funds — so this was not a case of a message published without his knowledge (para 8). And the advertisement carried no CA logo, no phone number, no email address and no office address: nothing that could function as a solicitation even if it had been read as one (para 8). What was disputed never got resolved, because no one turned up to dispute it. The advocate did not attend the hearing and put forward no evidence beyond the newspaper cutting and his account of the Facebook post. ## The charges Five items of the First Schedule were alleged together, all arising from the same advertisement: - **Item (5) of Part I** — securing professional work by means not open to a chartered accountant.[^item5] - **Item (6) of Part I** — soliciting professional work, directly or indirectly.[^item6] - **Item (7) of Part I** — advertising professional attainments in a manner not permitted.[^item7] - **Item (3) of Part III** — knowingly giving false information in a professional document.[^item3] - **Item (2) of Part IV** — other conduct bringing disrepute to the profession.[^item2] None of them concerns a Republic Day greeting as such — they concern using one to reach for work, status or advantage the Chartered Accountants Act does not permit. The Board found none of the five made out and closed the complaint on all of them. ## What the respondent said He had been the duly elected Chairman of his Branch at the relevant time, and knew perfectly well that only a Central Council member can be elected President of the Institute — he had no reason to reach for a claim that implausible. The Hindi word used in the greeting, "Adhyaksh", carries both meanings, and the newspaper had simply dropped the words identifying his branch. That was the paper's error, not something he asked for or approved. The advertisement was a greeting, not a promotion: it carried no professional logo, no contact details, nothing that solicited anything. On social media, he said, he had posted the greeting with his designation stated correctly, and the advocate had misrepresented what his own page showed — accessing it, he added, without authorisation. He denied any intention to demean the Institute or to gain professionally from the confusion. ## What the Board held The Board found nothing to connect the Chairman to the disputed wording itself. No evidence was produced that he had personally supplied or approved the newspaper's text describing him as "Adhyaksh" (para 8), and his account — that the photograph came from the Branch website and the wording was the newspaper's own choice — went unanswered, because the advocate never appeared to contest it (para 9). That left the Board weighing an admitted error of presentation against the absence of any evidence of intent, and it came down clearly on one side: > While the posting of the advertisement on social media may reflect an error of judgment, > in the absence of evidence indicating deliberate misrepresentation or professional > solicitation, the same cannot be construed as professional misconduct (para 9) It also weighed the disputed word against the man's real position, rather than in the abstract: > The contextual use of the term "Adhyaksh," when viewed alongside the Respondent's actual > position as Branch Chairman at the relevant time, further diminishes the allegation that > he attempted to project himself falsely as the President of ICAI (para 9) On the specific question of solicitation, the advertisement's contents told against the complaint directly: it "neither carried the prefix 'CA' nor contained any mobile number, email ID, or address, and therefore could not be construed as an attempt to solicit professional work" (para 8). ## The order > in the considered opinion of the Board, the Respondent is 'Not Guilty' of Professional or > Other Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (5), (6) and (7) of Part I and Item > (3) of Part III of the First Schedule and Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule No punishment follows. The Board ordered the case closed under Rule 15(2), and it stands disposed of.[^rule] The respondent had appeared with counsel at a single hearing, and judgment followed within a few weeks.[^coram] ## Why it matters *This section is ours, not the Board's.* **A single ambiguous word can carry an entire complaint.** "Adhyaksh" reads as either "Chairman" or "President" in Hindi. If your own designation is capable of two readings in the language a publication uses, spell it out in full rather than trust the shorter word. **Paying for an advertisement doesn't mean you control its final wording.** He paid for the greeting; the newspaper decided what to print. Ask for a proof before publication, and keep it — it is the easiest way to show what you actually approved. **A complaint nobody shows up to argue rarely survives.** The advocate never appeared at the hearing and produced no evidence beyond the cutting itself. If you complain to ICAI, treat the hearing as something you must attend, not a formality that runs on its own. This summarises a public order and links the primary source. It is general information, not legal or professional advice. [^parties]: *Shri Manaur Alam, Advocate, West Champaran, Bihar* was the complainant. *CA. Rajesh Kumar Khetan (M. No. 059894), Patna* was the respondent, serving at the relevant time as Chairman of the Institute's Patna Branch. [^item5]: Item (5) of Part I of the First Schedule concerns securing, either by the member or through another, professional business by means that a chartered accountant is not permitted to use. [^item6]: Item (6) of Part I of the First Schedule concerns a member in practice soliciting professional work, whether directly or indirectly, by circular, advertisement, personal communication or interview. [^item7]: Item (7) of Part I of the First Schedule concerns a member advertising their professional attainments or services in a manner not sanctioned by the Institute. [^item3]: Item (3) of Part III of the First Schedule concerns a member giving information known to be false, in any material particular, in a report, certificate, financial statement or other document a chartered accountant signs or is concerned with. [^item2]: Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule covers a member found guilty of any "other misconduct" bringing disrepute to the profession or the Institute — a general clause, used alongside a more specific one where the same conduct is also alleged to have damaged the profession's standing. [^rule]: Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 — where the Board finds a member not guilty, it records that finding and orders the complaint closed. There is no punishment hearing. [^coram]: CA. Rajendra Kumar P (Presiding Officer) and Ms. Dolly Chakrabarty, IAAS (Retd.) (Government Nominee), both present in person, with the respondent's counsel also present. The matter was heard at ICAI Bhawan, Lucknow on 1 September 2025, and the findings were signed on 26 September 2025.