A chartered accountant held a construction firm's power of attorney for twelve years. A brother called it a second job.

A chartered accountant held Special Power of Attorney for a Chhattisgarh construction company for twelve years, signing its bills and running its bank accounts alongside his own practice.¹ His brother complained years later that the arrangement was an undisclosed second occupation.²

What happened#

What decided the case was the shape of the paper trail across those twelve years. No appointment letter, employment agreement, salary record, attendance register, service record or remuneration statement had been produced by anyone (para 18), and nothing showed him supervising staff, sitting in on management decisions, keeping the company's books, controlling its finances or operating its bank accounts (para 19).

The Board tested the respondent's account rather than take it on trust. It directed him to swear that he had never operated a bank account for the company, never signed a cheque on its behalf and never been paid — and nothing on record contradicted what he swore. A separate affidavit from a director of the company said the same thing from the other side: no appointment, ever, and no remuneration (para 22).

The clause#

One clause, First Schedule, which is why the Board of Discipline heard it rather than the Disciplinary Committee.³

• Item (11) of Part I — a member holding a Certificate of Practice engaging in any business or occupation other than the profession of chartered accountancy, without the Council's permission.⁴ It is not concerned with whether the outside role was proper, well-paid or short-lived — only with whether it was, in substance, a job.

The power of attorney itself carried less legal weight than the complaint assumed. The Board noted in passing that it was unregistered and not enforceable in law, executed purely for the company's convenience (para 16) — but that was never the point. Signing under someone else's authority is not the same as being their employee, and the Board held the charge not established because nothing on the record put the respondent on the wrong side of that line (para 26).

What the respondent said#

Several defences, procedural and substantive both.

The complaint arrived nearly fourteen years after the conduct it described, an unexplained delay that had prejudiced his defence badly enough, he argued, to warrant dismissal on that ground alone.

He had never been an employee, consultant or professional adviser to the company. Whatever assistance he gave was occasional, informal and voluntary — extended out of goodwill toward the company's directors and toward another of his brothers, since deceased, who had himself been associated with it. A director of the company backed this in an affidavit: no appointment, ever, and no remuneration.

A power of attorney, he argued, is only an instrument of authorisation. It cannot by itself prove a professional relationship or misconduct, absent evidence of impropriety, wrongful gain, fraud or negligence.

The complaint, he said, was really an extension of the brothers' property dispute, and the disciplinary process should not be used to settle it. He disputed the authenticity of the "kachcha papers" the complaint relied on, calling them unsigned and unauthenticated, with no forensic or handwriting examination behind them. And he said his brother's death during the proceedings had cost him the chance to cross-examine the one person who could have explained the allegations, producing his sons' school records — from Raipur, Durg, Bhilai, Kota and Pune — against a suggestion that his own residence had been elsewhere.⁵

What the Board held#

The Board had reason to be cautious. Complainant and respondent were real brothers, and the complaint sat inside a live family dispute; the Board said it had examined the allegations "with utmost care, caution and objectivity", confined to the documentary record and nothing else (para 15).

The respondent admitted the essentials — the power of attorney existed, and he had signed documents under it. That left one question: what did the paperwork add up to? The Board framed it as a threshold test — not whether he had ever signed for the company, but whether he was in fact involved in its day-to-day functioning, management or administration to an extent inconsistent with his standing as a chartered accountant in practice (para 17).

On that test the record was thin in a specific way. No appointment letter, employment agreement, salary record, attendance register, service record or remuneration statement had been produced (para 18). Nothing showed him supervising staff, sitting in on management decisions, keeping the company's accounts, controlling its finances or operating its bank accounts (para 19). Questioned directly at the hearing, he said he had never operated a bank account for the company, never signed a cheque on its behalf and never been paid — his role was "occasional assistance and supplementary checking of certain matters whenever requested" (para 20).

The Board did not take that account on trust. It directed him to put the same claims on affidavit, and nothing on record contradicted what he swore. A separate affidavit from a director of the company said the same thing from the other side (paras 21-22).

What tipped the finding was the shape of the evidence over time. Twelve years is long enough that genuine full-time involvement would ordinarily leave a paper trail; instead the record held only a handful of signed documents (para 23). The Board put it plainly:

A finding of misconduct must rest on credible evidence demonstrating actual engagement in employment or management activities prohibited under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Such evidence is absent in the present case. (para 24)

Two things the order does not do. It does not rule on the delay argument, and it does not weigh in on the authenticity of the disputed "kachcha papers". It finds that even taken at face value, the complaint's own documents prove a signature — not employment.

The order#

the Respondent is 'Not Guilty' of Professional Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (11) of Part I 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. (para 27)

A not-guilty finding under the First Schedule ends here. There is no separate punishment hearing to follow, because there is nothing to punish — the case simply closes.⁶ A single hearing, more than two months before judgment was pronounced.⁷

Why it matters#

This section is ours, not the Board's.

A power of attorney is not an occupation, but it can look like one. The test was not whether the authority existed but whether the member behaved like an employee — an appointment, a salary, day-to-day control. Keep such an arrangement visibly occasional: no salary, no bank mandate in your name, no seat in management.

Item (11) wants the Council's permission before you start, not an explanation afterwards. This order turned on whether he was doing a job at all, not on whether permission had been sought. If you take on genuine outside work, apply in writing first and keep the approval on file.

The absence of an employment record is what acquitted him. No appointment letter, no salary slip, no attendance register, no bank account in his name. Make sure nothing you sign creates a record an outsider could read as employment.

There is no limitation period. This complaint arrived more than a decade after the conduct and was decided on documents alone, the only other witness having died. Keep whatever clears you for far longer than feels necessary.

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