--- title: A father photographed an exam hall over COVID distancing. The Board found no evidence of misbehaviour. description: A chartered accountant was accused of unauthorised entry, photographing his daughter's exam hall and misbehaving over air-conditioning. The Board found no evidence and held the charge not proved. case_number: BOD 826/2025 file_number: PPR/465/2021/DD/20/INF/2022/BOD/826/2025 forum: board-of-discipline institute: icai decided_on: 2026-07-27 outcome: Not guilty clauses: Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule order_pdf: https://disc.icai.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/8.-BOD-826-2025.pdf published: 2026-08-29 author: Jainam Shah keywords: bod 826 2025, other misconduct, item 2 part iv first schedule, board of discipline not guilty, examination centre conduct, covid-19 examination centre, rule 15(2) closure source: /icai/board-of-discipline/bod-826-2025 --- # A father photographed an exam hall over COVID distancing. The Board found no evidence of misbehaviour. A chartered accountant went to his daughter's examination centre during the COVID-19 pandemic, not as a professional but as a parent. The centre reported that he entered without authorisation, photographed the exam hall, and misbehaved when he pushed for air-conditioning to be switched on.[^parties] ## What happened ```timeline A chartered accountant's daughter is due to sit the Final examination at a college in Ludhiana, during the COVID-19 pandemic. His family has recently lost members to the pandemic, and he is anxious about the safety of the arrangements at her centre. He goes to the centre as a parent, before the exam begins, and photographs the seating inside the hall. He says this was to record that candidates were not spaced apart the way the pandemic protocols required. He deletes the photographs and leaves before the exam starts. The Centre Superintendent objects to his presence and to the photographs. He argues that candidates should be rotated between the air-conditioned and non-air-conditioned rooms so that nobody is disadvantaged. The centre staff report that he misbehaved with them over the issue. The Examination Department treats the centre's report as a complaint in its own right and places it before the Examination Committee. The Committee directs that the matter be referred to the Disciplinary Directorate for action against him. At the hearing he denies misbehaving throughout, then offers an apology — first in person, then in writing. The Board finds nothing beyond the allegation itself, reads the apology as courtesy rather than confession, and holds the charge not proved. ``` Two things were missing from the file rather than in it. Nobody set down the words the respondent was supposed to have used when he argued for air-conditioning, or named a witness to it beyond the centre's own report (para 9). And when the photographs were taken, the exam had not yet started and no papers had been distributed, so there was nothing to suggest the process itself had been touched (para 8). A written apology reached the Board two days after the hearing closed.[^apology] It did not change what the Board had already found on the facts — only how the apology itself should be read. ## The charge A single clause, First Schedule, which is why the Board of Discipline heard the matter rather than the Disciplinary Committee.[^forum] - **Item (2) of Part IV** — conduct that brings disrepute to the profession, whether or not it happens in the course of professional work.[^item2] There was no audit, no client and no engagement in question: the charge was about the respondent's own conduct as a parent at his daughter's exam centre — unauthorised entry, photographing the hall, and misbehaving when he pushed for the air-conditioning to be switched on. The Board held the charge not proved. ## What the respondent said He said he had entered and left before the exam commenced. The photographs, he said, recorded seating that did not meet COVID-19 distancing and sanitation norms, meant for the attention of the authorities rather than for himself, and he had deleted them before he left. He denied misbehaving, saying he had raised the seating concern respectfully. His family had recently lost members to the pandemic, which is why his daughter's safety weighed on him. On the air-conditioning complaint specifically, he said he had only suggested that candidates rotate between the air-conditioned and non-air-conditioned rooms so that everyone got equal conditions — not that his daughter be given a room to herself. ## What the Board held On the alleged threat, the Board found nothing behind the allegation itself: no material on record identifying the exact words the respondent was supposed to have used, the circumstances in which he was supposed to have used them, or any independent evidence corroborating the allegation (para 9). On the photographs, the record showed the opposite of what the charge needed: "there is nothing on record to suggest that the confidentiality, sanctity or integrity of the examination process was compromised in any manner" (para 8). The pandemic context did real work in the reasoning. The respondent's family had lost members to COVID-19, and the Board found that "such concerns cannot be regarded as unnatural or unreasonable in the extraordinary circumstances that existed at the relevant time" (para 10). The apology complicated the record without deciding it. The respondent denied the allegations throughout the hearing, then submitted a written apology two days later. The Board did not read that as a concession: "the apology appears to have been offered in a spirit of maintaining dignity and decorum rather than as an admission of misconduct" (para 11). The conclusion followed from what wasn't there: "there is insufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent engaged in any abusive, threatening or otherwise improper conduct. Mere expression of concern regarding seating arrangements and student safety, particularly during an unprecedented public health crisis, cannot by itself be construed as professional misconduct" (para 12). ## The order > the Respondent is 'Not Guilty' of Other Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (2) > of Part IV of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Accordingly, the > Board passed an Order for closure of the case in terms of the provisions of Rule 15 (2) of > the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other > Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007. No punishment stage follows a finding of not guilty. The Board ordered the case closed under Rule 15(2) and disposed of it.[^rule] Findings and closure came from the same three-member Board, in a single hearing.[^coram] ## Why it matters *This section is ours, not the Board's.* **An allegation of misbehaviour needs the words, not the label.** The charge failed for want of what was actually said, when, and who could corroborate it (para 9). Get the specific words and a witness on record. **An apology is not an admission.** The respondent apologised without conceding the facts, and the Board read it as courtesy towards the institution rather than a confession (para 11). If you apologise to de-escalate, keep denying the facts separately and on record. **Item (2) of Part IV follows the member outside practice.** He was in that room as a parent, engaged professionally by nobody. Conduct yourself in any dispute as though the clause applies, because it does. **A complaint needs no client to reach the Board.** This one began with ICAI's own Examination Department.[^informant] Treat dealings with the Institute's own departments as part of the same record. This summarises a public order and links the primary source. It is general information, not legal or professional advice. [^parties]: *CA. Rajesh Kumar (M.No. 092948), Ludhiana* is the respondent. There was no private complainant: the report came from ICAI's own Examination Department, after an examination centre in Ludhiana reported his conduct during the Final (New Course) examination in July 2021. His daughter was a candidate at the centre. She is not a party to this case and is not named on this page. [^apology]: The respondent expressed an unconditional apology in person at the hearing on 20 May 2026, and followed it with a written unconditional apology by letter dated 22 May 2026. [^item2]: Part IV of the First Schedule deals with "other misconduct". Item (2) covers conduct which, in the opinion of the Council or its Boards, brings disrepute to the profession — which is why it can attach to behaviour that is not professional work as such. [^forum]: 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. [^rule]: Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 governs closure where a charge is not proved. Rule 15(1), by contrast, governs a finding of guilt, after which punishment is passed separately under Section 21A(3). [^coram]: CA. Babu Abraham Kallivayalil (Presiding Officer), Dolly Chakrabarty, IAAS (Retd.) (Government Nominee) and CA. Pankaj Shah (Member), all in person. They heard the matter at ICAI Bhawan, New Delhi on 20 May 2026, and pronounced findings on 27 July 2026. [^informant]: The file number carries an "INF" marker — the Institute's own shorthand for a matter opened on information rather than a member's complaint. Here the information came from the examination centre, referred up through ICAI's Examination Department. The Examination Committee, at its 618th meeting held over two days in September 2021, directed that the matter be sent to the Disciplinary Directorate.