rcsuDc/281/201 5

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEETHE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINT OF PROFESSIONAL OR OTHERMISCONDUCT

tcst/Dc/281/2015

Order reserved on: 20th August, 2018order issued on,

Z Z BCi Z'tBShri Hitender Kumar Mehta,FCS-3946 ...Complainant

Shri Rajiv Bajaj, FCS-3662 .... Respondent

Present:Complainant in person along with Shri J K Mittal, AdvocateRespondent in person along with Shri Ashish Makhija, AdvocateShri Vikas Srivastava, Deputy Director on behalf of Director (Discipline)

FINAL ORDER

A complaint dated 13th January, 2015 in Form 'l' was received under Section21 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 ('the Act') read with sub-rule (1) ofRule 3 of the Company Secretaries (Procedure of lnvestigations of Professionaland other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 ('the Rules') fromShri Hitender Kumar Mehta, FCS-3946 (hereinafter referred to as 'theComplainant') against Shri Rajiv Bajaj, FCS-3662 (hereinafter referred to as'the Respondent').

ln his complaint the Complainant alleged that the Respondent has committedthe following acts of professional misconduct :

a) The Respondent failed to comply with the disclosure requirements abouthis occupation in the Statement pursuant to sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of theCompany Secretaries (Election to the Council) Rules. 2006, ('CS ElectionRules') read with Schedule 4 thereof, thereby violating Clause (1), Part llof Second Schedule to the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act').

b) ln ltem j(iii) of his Nomination Form the Respondent included in theStatement under the CS Election Rules particulars known to him to befalse thereby violating Clause (3) of Part ll of Second Schedule.

c) ln the Statement under the CS Election Rules - as prescribed by theCouncil vide Gazette Notification No. 1 of 2014 daled 09.09.2014, theRespondent failed to supply true and complete information about hisoccupation thereby violating Clause (2) of Part lll of First Schedule.

Vs

t -yffi Page 1of 11

rcsuDc/281/201s

d) The Respondent violated Clause (2) of Part lV of First Schedule read withRule 42 (a) (xii) of Company Secretaries (Election to the Council) Rules.2006, by including particulars in the Statement under CS Election Rules,knowing them to be false thereby making false statement about his trueprofession/occupation status vis-d-vis both the lnstitute and theelectorate despite being a sitting Council member of the Northern lndiaRegional Council. The Respondent concealed the fact of his being anAdvocate in practice simultaneously while occupying the position ofwhole time Company Secretary in a listed company (Panasonic Networkslndia Co. Ltd.) since 01.04.1998.

e) Complainant invokes Section 22 ot the Company Secretaries Act, 1980,and seeks for enquiry into the conduct of Shri Rajiv Bajaj, the Respondentfor other acts or omissions (other than the acts or omissions provided inany of the Schedules).

3. ln his Written Statement dated 9th March, 2015, the Respondent denied allthe allegations made by the Complainant in his complaint. He also raised apreliminary objection about the maintainability of the complaint stating thatthe Complainant was one of the contesting candidates to the Central Councilof lCSl and having lost the election had filed the present complaint out offrustration as an afterthought and the Complainant should have filed thecomplaint before the Returning Officer at that time, when the alleged violationwas stated to have been committed by the Respondent. The Respondentfurther contended as follows: -

The Complainant, who is an Advocate in Practice and is registered withthe Bar Council and Delhi BarAssociation, himself had not disclosed thisfact in his manifesto during his election to the Council and has therefore,violated clause (iii) of the Sub-rule (4) of Rule 42 of the Election Rules.The Respondent was a member of the Supreme Court Bar Associationbut he never practised as an Advocate while in whole time employmentas Company Secretary and Associate Director (Finance) in a listedcompany.The Respondent admitted that he continued to be enrolled as anAdvocate at the time of filing his nomination but stated that he neverpractised as an Advocate. Mere membership of the Supreme Court BarAssociation for academic purposes of accessing the library and basicfacilities for the purpose of carrying out the job as the person in chargeof legal affairs of a Company does not mean that he is in active practiceas an advocate. Therefore, there is no wrong statement in the"Statement pursuant to sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 read with Schedule 4(Annexed to the Nomination Form for Election to the Council of thelnstitute of Company Secretaries of lndia)" along with the nominationform.The Respondent had made a request to the Supreme Court BarAssociation, vide his letter dated 07 .07 .2011 , which was duly receivedand acknowledged on 09.07.201 1, to strike off his name and that he hasnot paid his membership fee to SCBA after the year 2011. He, therefore,presumed that his name had been struck off the rolls of SCBA.

a)

b)

c)

d)

I \,\ s Page 2 of 11

\"

M

tcsuDcl281l2o15

e) The Respondent was never engaged in the occupation as an advocateand never raised any invoice or received any payment for practising asan Advocate. He has correctly mentioned his employment particulars,

since he was not practising as an Advocate, the question of mentioningas such did not arise and, therefore, he did not conceal any information.

4. The Complainant in his Rejoinder dated 31"t Mach, 2015 contended asfollows:

a) The Respondent is enrolled as "Advocate" with the Bar Council ofPunjab & Haryana under Enrolment No. P/423l1996 dated 30.03.1996.ln response to RTI application dated 2 1stJanuary, 201 5, the Bar Councilof Punjab & Haryana has confirmed that the name of the Respondentcontinues to be on the rolls of Practicing Advocates even on date. ln2005, the Respondent (while being a whole-time Company Secretary)has applied for admission as member of the Supreme Court BarAssociation (SCBA).

b) The application form for admission as member of the SCBA requiresdeclaration by the applicant that he is an Advocate and has been inregular practice as such. Admittedly, the Respondent submitted theapplication form for membership of SCBA and furnished a declarationof his being in regular practice as an Advocate.

c) Since 2005, the Respondent has been regularly paying the annual feeof the SCBA. By doing so, the Respondent continued to represent andclaim that he is in the regular practice as an Advocate, simultaneouslywith his full-time salaried employment as whole-time CompanySecretary of a company.

d) The Complainant also referred to some additional facts which, heclaimed, surfaced subsequently, that the Respondent had also appliedfor Certificate of Practice (COP) of the ICSI and was granted Certificateof Practice of lCSl vide COP number 2686 sometime inAugusVSeptember 1997. His COP was cancelled in the month of May/June 1998, where after he was employed as whole-time CompanySecretary. Therefore, from the information available on records, theRespondent is/has been simultaneously engaged in the followingoccupations, in violation of Clause (10), Part I of First Schedule of theAct:

- Company Secretary in Practice and as an Advocate- Company Secretary in Employment and as an Advocate

e) The Respondent being engaged in two occupations at the same timewas under statutory obligation to mention the true facts about the samein his nomination form for lCSl Council Elections 2014. Whereas, underthe head, 'Particulars of other occupation or engagement' in theStatement under the CS Election Rules, the Respondent has purposelyand intentionally mentioned "Not Applicable" (where he was supposedto describe his other occupation of being a "Practicing Advocate"),which is clearly a suppression, and fraudulent concealment of materialinformation. lt has been alleged that the Respondent has violatedRegulation 168(1) of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982

tDr is#/ \\e Page 3 of 11

tcst/Dc/2811201s

which provides that the prior permission of the Council by a resolutionis required for a Practising Company Secretary (PCS) to engage in anybusiness or occupation other than the profession of CompanySecretary.

ln order to ascertain the veracity of the allegations, the Director Discipline,vide letter dated 12th August, 2016, sent to Hony. Secretary, SCBA, soughtclarification on the issues in the matter. ln his letter daled 22d August, 2016the Hony. Secretary, SCBA stated that the letter dated 17th July, 2011 of theRespondent which is dated 7th July,2011, was received in SCBA office on9th July, 2011, but inadvertently the office could not take any action on theaforesaid letter. The Respondent again sent a letter dated lBth January, 2015and the same was received on '1Bth February, 2015 by the office and aforesaidletter was placed before the then Hony. Secretary on 23rd February,2015forfurther action and the same was returned to the office with endorsement 'Pls.do the needful" and accordingly, the office struck off the name of theRespondent from the rolls of the SCBA with effect from lBth January, 2015.After accepting his request for the deletion of his name, there was no furthercorrespondence between the SCBA and the Respondent. The name of theRespondent has been struck off w.e.f. 18th January, 2015 and his name doesnot appear in the rolls of SCBA.

After examination of the Complaint, the Written Statement, theRejoinder and taking into consideration other material on records, theDirector (Discipline) formed her prima facie opinion dated l2thJanuary,2017, stating that the Respondent has failed to supply complete andtrue information about his occupation in the statement under the CSElection Rules which is in violation of Rule a2gl (xiil of the CS ElectionRules. The Director (Discipline) was of the prima facie opinion that theRespondent is guilty of professional misconduct under clause (1) ofPart ll ofthe Second Schedule, Clause (3) of Part-ll of Second Scheduleand Clause (2) of Part-lll of First schedule to the Company SecretariesAct, 1980. He is also guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (2)of Part-lV of the First Schedule to Company Secretaries Act, 1980, forviolation of Rules 42 (4) (12) of the CS Election Rules, as the Respondenthas failed to comply with the two disclosures requirement about hisoccupation in the statement pursuant to sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of CSElection Rules read with Schedule 4 to the nomination form for Electionto the Council of the lnstitute of Company Secretaries of lndia.

fhe prima-facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) dated 12th January,2Ol7,was considered by the Disciplinary Committee in its 74th meeting held on16th January, 2017 and its 75th meeting held on 24th March, 2017. TheCommittee asked the Director (Discipline) to further examine the issueincluding the potential wider ramification with regard to the members of thelnstitute enrolling themselves with the lnstitute and Bar Council. lt was furtherdirected that the Director (Discipline) may, at her discretion, even considerseeking the opinion of a Senior Advocate preferably of a Law Officer of theHon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in this regard.

6.

7.

tf6''l,,gia;;#"9

\$- e Page 4 of 11

\,,

P

rcst/Dc/28r /2015

8. The Director (Discipline) examined the matter further in the light of the LegalOpinion dated 11th March, 2018 of Learned Additional Solicitor General,Supreme Court of lndia and the documents on record, and vide her Furtherlnvestigation Report dated 12th April, 2018 reiterated her earlier pima-facieopinion dated l2rhJanuary,2017 .

9. The Disciplinary Committee considered and agreed with the Furtherlnvestigation Report dated 1 2th April, 2018 of the Director (Discipline) inits 90th meeting held on 4th June, 2018 and decided to adjudicate thematter in accordance with Rule 18 of the Rules read with the Act.

10. ln his Written Statement dated 20th July, 2018 to the prima facie opinion andfurther investigation reports of the Director (Discipline), the Respondentstated as follows:-

a) The Respondent contented that prima facie opinion and furtherinvestigation report of the Director (Discipline) is not based on correct andproper appreciation of the facts and law. The Director (Discipline) hascompletely missed out the correct interpretation of Regulation 65(4) (b)(iii) which clearly states "any other main occupation (applicable only if thecandidate is not in any employment or practicing as Company Secretary)".The disclosure of the present employment as required by Regulation65(4XbXi) were correctly and truly stated.

b) The Director (Discipline) has not stated the evidence on the basis of whichshe concluded that the Respondent was engaged in practice as anAdvocate. Her prima facie opinion and further investigation report is founderroneous. The Ld. Appellate Authority In Appeal No. 10i lCSl/201 5 in thecase of Benny Mathew observed as under:

"lt is well seftled legal position which was not disputed also by theCouncil for the lnstitute that the nature of proceedings againstprofessional for acts of misconduct are in nature of quasi ciminal andburden of proof of guilt is as high as in a normal ciminal trail upon theprosecution and guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt."

c) The Respondent informed the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana videletter dated Sth August, 1997, that as he intended to start his practice asCompany Secretary, his name as an Advocate may be struck off. Sincethe Respondent did not receive any communication from the Bar Council,he bonafidely believed that his name had been struck off. Similarly, by aletter dated 7th July, 201 1, duly receipted, the Respondent made a writtenrequest to Supreme Court Bar Association that his name should be struckoff the rolls of the Bar Association. The Respondent has never paid theannual membership fee thereafter which is evident from the extract ofAccount Statement. lf the concerned authorities, namely, Bar Council ofPunjab & Haryana and the Supreme Court Bar Association failed topursue appropriate follow up action after he has made the specific requestin writing, he cannot be saddled with the liability. ln fact by his letter dated18thJune, 2016, the Respondent has made a strong protest to Bar Council

L \$u Page 5 of 11

lfrit

v

tcst/oc/281/201s

of Punjab & Haryana against the information supplied by it to theComplainant in response to his RTI Application.

d) The Complainant had also filed an Election Appeal No. 01/2015 beforeElection Tribunal on the same issue which was dismissed by the ElectionTribunal vide Order dated 30th March, 2016. Aggrieved by the aforesaidorder, the Complainant filed Writ Petition No. 3128/2016 in the High Courtof Delhi which was dismissed by an Order dated 26th April, 2016. The LPANo. 37412016 filed by the Complainant before the Division Bench ofHon'ble High Court of Delhi was also dismissed vide Order dated 13rhDecember, 2016. The lnstitute was a party to all the above proceedings,the Director (Discipline) has been in gross error to ignore all theseimportant and relevant facts in forming her prima facie opinion.

e) The Complainant has been indulging in forum shopping and is tarnishingthe image of the Respondent. The Respondent requested for rejection ofall his complaints which emanate only out of the frustration that thecomplainant is experiencing after losing the election. lt appears that thisfrivolous litigation is meant merely to harass the Respondent.

f) The Complainant should also suo-moto be called upon to explain whyaction should not be taken against him for bringing 'disrepute' to theprofession.

11.The Complainant, in his Rejoinder dated 1stAugust,20'18 rebutted thecontentions of the Respondent and stated that:

(a) The Respondent has not placed on record a copy of his letter dated 7thJuly, 2011 stated to have been written to the Supreme Court BarAssociation to substantiate his claim.

(b) The Respondent has also not placed on record a copy of letter dated5th August, 1997 stated to have been written by him to the Bar Council ofPunjab and Haryana requesting it to keep his registration in abeyance.

(c) As per the records of Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, the Respondentnever surrendered his Enrolment Certificate and his enrolment as apracticing Advocate is still alive'The finding given by the Election Tribunalhas never been challenged by the Respondent and therefore, the samehas aftained finality.

(d) The Respondent has wrongly referred to regulation 65(a)(b)(iii) of theCompany Secretaries Regulations, 1982, in fact, regulation 65 of hasalready been omitted by the Company Secretaries (Amendment)Regulation, 2010 vide Notification No. 531: legal:710111M11, published inthe Gazette of lndia, Extraordinary, Part lll, section 4, dated 26th July,2010.

(e) The Respondent is making false statement that he had made a request tothe Bar council vide his letter dated Sth August, 1997 for striking off hisname. This matter has been properly examined by the Director(Discipline) in her Prima Facie Opinion dated 26th August, 2016 andFurther lnvestigation Report dated 12th April, 2018 in Complaint no.DC131612015 filed by the Complainant against the Respondent.

V Page 5 of 11

tcst/Dcl281/2015

(f) Further, in the reply dated 13th February, 2015 received under RTI Act bythe Complainant, the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana has confirmed that(a) the Respondent is holding the Enrolment Certificate as Advocate witheffect from 30th March, 1996: (b) the Respondent has never applied forvoluntary suspension or cancellation of Enrolment Certificate: and (c) thename of the Respondent is continuing on the Roll of Practicing Advocate.

(g) Election Appeal and complaint of professional misconduct are twoseparate matters. The orders passed by the Hon'ble Election Tribunal or,as the case may be, Hon'ble High Court in separate cases are matter offact and records.

12.The matter was heard by the Disciplinary Committee on 20th August, 2018.Both the parties appeared in person along with their Counsels. TheComplainant raised a preliminary objection with regard to the appearance ofCounsel for the Respondent, Shri Ashish Makhija, Advocate, being related tothe advocate of the lnstitute who is appearing in the petitions filed byComplainant before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Per contra Shri AshishMakhija, Advocate, submitted that he is an independent professional anddoes not have common office, common practice, and common clients with hisfather Shri R D Makheeja, who is a Legal Consultant of the lnstitute., Therecannot be any conflict of interest before the Disciplinary Committee as this isa complaint by one private individual against another private individual i.e. theRespondent, whom he is representing here.

13. Both the parties were asked to leave for some time. The Complainant wasthen called in and the Disciplinary Committee, informed the Complainant, thatadjudicating the preliminary objection would necessitate adjournment forsubstantive response of the Respondent to a later date, thereby furtherdelaying the adjudication process of the Disciplinary Committee on the basisof his preliminary objection and whether he wants to continue with hispreliminary objection? The Complainant then responded that he did not wantan adjournment on the ground of his preliminary objection against theRespondent's Advocate and hence unconditionally withdrew his saidobjection.

14. Thereafter, the Respondent and his Advocate were called in and the decisionof the Complainant was communicated to them. Shri Ashish Makhija on hispart requested for recording his submission that Shri Hitender Mehta,Complainant would not thereafter raise the same preliminary objection as aground in any proceeding at any subsequent hearing. The Complainantaccepted and confirmed that he will not raise this objection at any stage ofthe proceedings.

15.The Complainant further stated that the Respondent has only denied twocharges viz. relating to Rule a2 (a) (xii) and clause (2) Part lll of the FirstSchedule. The Respondent has not denied the other charges and thisaccording to him amounts to an admission. He stated that he wasemphatically relying on an Order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the

Respondent did not place on record these documents before the Tribunal. He

r\e Page 7 of U

tcst/Dcl281 12015

also placed reliance on Paras 4 & 5 of the prima-facie opinion of the Director(Discipline) which in turn relies on the opinion of the Learned AdditionalSolicitor General of lndia. His final submission was that the Respondent'sreliance on Regulation 65 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, .19g2 iserroneous as the same stands omitted w.e.f. 26th July, 20.,l0.

16.The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the complaint is a motivatedone and primarily and essentially relates to the election of 2014 and thenomination documents therein. By seeking to give a colour of professionalMisconduct, the Complainant is only harassing the Respondent since he lostthe election narrowly to the Respondent. The Complainant chose not tochallenge the order dated 13rh December, 2017 of the Division Bench of theHon'ble Delhi High Court with regard to his election complaint before theSupreme Court as the Complainant himself recognises that it would serve alimited purpose with regard to the continuing tenure of the Respondent. Hestated that he specifically relies on para 7.1 of the prima facie opinion andseeks to demonstrate through sub points (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) that in essence theComplaint only relates to the violation of Election Rules and not makingcertain disclosures by the Respondent. He further added that para 7..1 (i) to(vii) dealing with section 22 is of a general nature and does not change thecolour of the substantive complaint under the violation of Election Rules.

1 7, The Respondent further submitted that even para 8.13 of the prima facieopinion wherein the Respondent has been held prima facie guilty by theDirector (Discipline), also specifically relates to non-supply of completeinformation in nomination form filed under the CS Election Rules. He alsosought to demonstrate from para 8.13 clause ( 1 ) that the Respondent had notcontravened any provision of the Act, Regulation, Guidelines with regard toRule 42 (4) (xii) clause (1). To substantiate this point further, he emphasisedthat elections are not conducted under Guidelines of the lnstitute, but ratherthe election process is totally separate in nature and is conducted under"Rules" of the Central Govt. and also the "Rules" themselves do not form partof Clause (1). The sum and substance of his argument was that only Rule 42deals with election violation and the Disciplinary Committee would berequired to examine the complaint within the ambit of Rule 42.f o substantiatethis submission it was stated that it is not the case of the Complainant thatthere is violation of Rule 42(2) Or 42(3) or (4) as had it been a violation of thesame, his candidature for election would have been cancelled by the ElectionTribunal. ln this light, it only leaves open to see whether the complaint fallswithin the ambit of 42 (4) (xii) with regard to making any false statement. Hedrew the attention of the Disciplinary Committee to the particulars of thecontesting candidate and sought to demonstrate that in columns (a, h, i, j, k)of the prescribed nomination form the information required to be filed is purelya matter of option, so allowed by the lnstitute. Assuming if he was therecipient of the prestigious national award and he yet chose to write nil in thecolumn by not referring to the same. This could not amount to a case of

rcsr/Dc/281/20r s

18.With regard to column (h) of the prescribed nomination form, he stated thatthe Respondent had not withheld information that he had completed his LL.B.The crux of the argument is that this option merely relates to enhancement ordeclaration of his achievements and non-declaration cannot be deemed asprofessional misconduct. Neither can they be seen as suppression orfalsification. With regard to column (j) it was his option to decide whether hewould like to provide information in all sub parts or restrict himself only to oneof the 3 sub-parts.

19. ln reply to the contentions of the Complainant that there is a lack of denial bythe Respondent and this should be deemed as acceptance on his part. Hedrew the attention to the various sentences in Written Statement of theRespondent to the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) where hehas specifically and repeatedly placed on record his denials. With referenceto the Complainant highlighting the Respondent's alleged membership withthe Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana in 1997 he submitted that it would beincorrect to adjudicate this allegation under this present complaint as thatsubstantively was an issue which was under consideration of this very sameDisciplinary Committee of lCSl, in the second and separate complaint by thesame Complainant, namely, DC131612015. This according to himdemonstrates that the Complainant in his present complaint is trying to jumbleand mix all issues between different Forums. He also objected to theRespondent not being served with a copy of the recall application dated Sth

June, 2018 by the Complainant on the order dated 29th June, 2018 of thisCommittee.

20. ln his Rejoinder, the Complainant sought to deny the issues referred to by theRespondent with regard to awards and professional degrees and also re-emphasised that reliance on Regulation 65 by the Respondent is erroneousas also an attempt to incorrectly shift the onus of evidence on theComplainant by replying on Regulation 65.

21 . After hearing the arguments of both the parties, it was informed to them thatthe hearing stood completed. Both the sides were given one week's time tosubmit any case laws in support of their respective arguments, if any, with acopy to the other side. Both the sides were also to submit proof of service tothe other side prior to submitting the case laws to the Disciplinary Directorate.

22.Pursuant to the direction of Disciplinary Committee, the complainant hasreferred the following Case laws that were served to the other side also:

(a) Order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi inLPA No. 37412016 Hitender Kumar Mehta Vs. Union of lndia & Ors.

(b) Order dated 05.02.2015 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CivilAppeal No. 147812015 - Krishnamurthy Vs. Sivakumar & Ors.

(c) National lnsurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Swaran Singh & Ors. [200a(3) SCC 297](d) Order dated 04.03.2013 of the Hon'ble Appellate Authority in Appeal No.

13ilC5V2012.

23.The Respondent has referred to the following two judgements in support ofhis contention that the Professional misconduct cases are quasi criminal in

l\/ \v Page 9 of u

lcst/Dc/281 /2015

nature, and charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He hasserved the same to the Complainant:a) H.V. Panchaksharappa Vs K.G. Eshwar (A1R2000SC3344)b) Council of the lnstitute of Chartered Accountants of lndia Vs. C.H.

Padalia and Anr. (1977MPLJ722)

24. Atler examination of the complaint, the Written Statement of theRespondent, the rejoinderof the Complain ant,lhe prima facieopinion andfurther investigation report of the Director (Discipline) and the oralsubmissions made by the parties during the course of hearing,documents and cases laws submitted, the Disciplinary Committeeobserved that the allegations made by the Complainant primarily relatesto the Election of the Respondent as a Council Memberof the lnstitute inthe elections conducted in the year 20,14, in violation of the provisions ofRule 42 of the Company Secretaries (Election to the Council) Rules, 2006arising out of non-submission of details of his other occupations in theoptional information column in the Statement attached to the nominationform filed by him for the said elections.

25.The Disciplinary Committee noted that the Complainant who had lost theelection had raised an Election Dispute against the Respondent under Section10A of Act which was referred by Central Government to the Election Tribunalconstituted by it in terms of Section 10B of the Act. The Election Tribunal whileconsidering the application has exhaustively dealt with the allegations made bythe Complainant pertaining to election of the respondent. The Election Tribunalwhile rejecting the application of the Complainant vide its order dated 30.3.2016,has specifically adjudicated the issue of providing optional information in thenomination form.

26. Aggrieved by an Order dated 30.3.2016 of the Election Tribunal, theComplainant had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtvide WP (C) No. 13353/2016 and the same was dismissed vide a detailedorder on 26.4.2016. The order dated 26.4.2016 of the Hon'ble Judge Delhi HighCourt, was further challenged by the Complainant before the Hon'ble DivisionBench of the Delhi High Court by way of LPA No. 37412016. The Division Benchof the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the said appeal by an Order dated13.'12.2017 observing inter-alia that the findings rendered by the Tribunal andsingle judge were not erroneous.

27. The Disciplinary Committee observed that an interim application dated27th July,2018 was received from the Complainant wherein the Complainanthad urged the Disciplinary Committee to "recall" its order dated 29th June, 2018granting additional time of 10 days to the Respondent to file his WrittenStatement to the prima-facie opinion of Director (Discipline). The DisciplinaryCommittee observed that the Complainant has sought to direct the DisciplinaryCommittee as to how it should perform its functions and this, in some senses,could also be vlewed as an attempt to influence or pressurise the DisciplinaryCommittee in performing its duties. The Disciplinary Committee reiterates that itis an independent mechanism that conducts the disciplinary proceedingsfollowing due process, in a fair manner, and following the Principles of Natural

VI\L* Page 10 of 11

tcst/Dc/281/2015

Justice. The Disciplinary committee is conscious of its responsibility of adheringto the deadline by Hon'ble High of Delhi.

28.The Disciplinary Gommittee has observed that the complaint has beenadjudicated before three separate Forums i.e. the Election Tribunal (whichpassed an order dated 30.3.2016); thereafter, the same being chaltengedbefore the Learned single Judge of Delhi High court (which dismissed thechallenge vide order daled 24.4.2016); and thereafter the LearnedDivisional Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (dismissed the challengeto the order of the single judge vide order dated 13.12.2017.

29.The Disciplinary committee further noted that complainant has failed toprove that the Respondent has violated Rule 42 of CS Election Rules, inrespect of providing information in the statement attached to thenomination form and, therefore, the Respondent is not liable fordisciplinary action under clause (2) of part-lV of the First Schedule andalso under clauses (1) & (3) of Part ll of Second Schedule to CompanySecretaries Act, 1980.

30.Accordingly, the Disciplinary Committee after considering all the materialavailable on record, the written and oral submissions of parties and intotality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the argumentsadduced before it by both the parties, is of the opinion that theRespondent is NOT GUILW of the professional and other misconductunder clauses (1) & (3) of Part ll of Second Schedule and/or clause Afterconsidering all the records and facts and circumstances of the case, thewritten and oral submissions of parties and all other material on record,(2) of Part-lll of the First Schedule and/or clause (2) of part lV of the FirstSchedule of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980.

3l.Accordingly, pursuant to Sub-rule (2) of Rule ('19) of the Company Secretaries(Procedure of lnvestigations of Professional and other Misconduct and Conductof Cases) Rules, 2007, the Disciplinary Committee, closed this complaint.

N$"CS Ashitsli C Doshi

Member

\*Y'CS Santosh Kumar Agrawala

Presiding Officer

Page U of 11