l\m INSTITUTE OF C BARTEtu~n AccouNTANTs OF NOIA I

(Sci up by an Act of Parliament)

PPR/P /64/2014-DD/51/INF/2014/BOD/304/2017

ORDER UNDER SECTION 21 A (3) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT,

.1_94~___READ WITH RULE 15(1L_OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTAt:J..1§
(PJ3OG.C.Dl~R~_Qf__ lt,JY_ESTIGATIONS OF PROFE_~SIONAL A~D OTHER
MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT OF CASES) RULES, 2007.

In the matter of:-

CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal (M.No.091903), Delhi in Re:

[PPR/P/64/2014-DD/51 /I NF/2014/BOD/304/2017]

MEMBERS PRESENT:
CA. Prasanna Kumar D, Presiding Officer
Mrs. Rani Nair, (IRS, Retd.), Government Nominee
CA. Durgesh Kumar Kabra, Member

Date of final hearing: 9th March 2020

Date of Order: 21 -May-2024

1. The Board of Discipline vide Report dated 30th January, 2020 was of the
opinion that CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal is guilty of Professional and "Other
Misconduct" falling within the meaning of Clause (2) of Part Ill and Clause (2) of
Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 read with
section 22 of the said Act.

2. An action under Section 21A (3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 was
contemplated against CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal and communication dated 26th
February, 2020 was addressed to him thereby granting him an opportunity of being
heard in person and/or to make written representation before the Board on 9th
March, 2020.

3. CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal appeared personally before the Board on 9th
March 2020 and was put on oath since it was the first time that he appeared before it
and made his oral as well as written representation before the Board. He also
requested to take a lenient view in his case for award of punishment.

4. CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal in his written representation dated 8th March,
2020, inter-alia, stated as hereunder:-
~- .
CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal (M.No.091903), Delhi in Re:
Pa~e 1 of 5
 Tin: I ~.STTTUTE OF C11ART1ou:o A c couNTANTS OF l NDIA
(Set up by an Act of Parliament)

PPR/P/64/2014-00/51/IN F/2014/B0D/304/2017

(a) the Hon'ble Board of Discipline overlooked /did not consider the legal view of
the matter, which should have been considered by the Hon'ble Board of
Discipline, as stated hereunder:-
A. The DIG, CBI did not even file the complaint in the prescribed Forrn
"I" as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Chartered Accountants
(Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct
and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, but only provided the
transcription of the recorded calls, which cannot be considered as
an evidence and relied upon in the absence of call records.
B. On the basis of "self contained note" alone, the matter was treated
as "Information'' within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Chartered
Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other
Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007. The letter/note- did
not fulfil the criterion laid down u/s 21 of the Chartered Accountants
Act, 1949, and as such the said note has no legal sanctity.
C. No copy of the investigation report or a copy of charge sheet has
been filed by the Informant before the Director(Discipline).ln
absence of the copy of investigation report and Charge Sheet, the
DIG in order to cover their short-comings, submitted copies of
some documents (having no evidentiary value) which clearly was
an afterthought to wrongly implicate the Respondent which is in
violation of Rule 7(2) of ''The Chartered Accountants (Procedure of
Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct
of Cases) Rules, 2007".
D. VVithout copy of any investigation or any Charge Sheet, the
Respondent had been implicated on mere suspicion and surmises.
Informant has failed to furnish any evidence/proof substantiating
such allegations; there is not even a single witness produced by
the Informant to verify the veracity of such purported allegations.
E. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 17.12.2014 was issued by
the Ld DD, in reference to the letter dated 04.04.14 submitted by
the Informant, the said SCN is itself, bad and erroneous in law.
There is violation of Rule 8(1) r/w rule 11 , since it is obligatory upon
the Director(Discipline) to communicate the Respondent about the
complaint/information within the prescribed time period of 60 days
from the date of receipt of letter/note. The Director(Discipline)
issued the SCN only on 17.12.2014 to the Respondent whi'lst the
"Self Contained Note" was received by the DD from the Informant
on 04.04.14, i.e. issuance of SCN after a long delay of more than 8
months. Even in the delayed SCN issued on 17.12.2014, the "Self-
contalned note" was not made available to the Respondent which
was subsequently provided by the Director(Discipline) only after a
reply was submitted by the Respondent dated 12.01.2015.
(\'"ii .
CA Radhey Shya,n Bansal (M.No.091903}, Delhi 1n Re:
Page 2 of 5
 T1rn t~sTJTUTE OF CnARTERcu AccovNTANTS oF IN01A
(Sci up hy an Act of Parliament)

PPR/P/ 64/2014-DD/ 51/ INF /2014/8OD/304/2017

F_ In PFO dated 10.03.2017 the Respondent has also been charged

under clause (2) of Part Ill of First Schedule, in addition to being
charged under clause (2) of Part IV of First Schedule, however.
w. r.t. Clause (2) of Parl Ill no SCN was issued to the Respondent
and as such the Respondent has not been given the sacrosanct
opporiunity of being heard and right of representation.
G. The set of documents, namely C-2 to C-54, are non-est documents
carrying no evidentiary value and are illegal, for the fact, that they
have been submitted after the enquiry in the case was complete.
and the case had been closed . The referred ca lls are more than 11
years old as on date and also no original tapes have made been
available to the Respondent. The Respondent denies the summary
interpretation of the calls as reported by the Informant since the
same are incomplete, haphazard, vague and thus fabricated.
H. The Hon'ble Board of Discipline overlooked/did not consider that
the Director(Oiscipline) without verification of facts and taking legal
view stated in its PFO "It is important to note excerpts of this very
conversations that the Director(Oiscipline) has quoted in the para
8.1 to 8.3 of his PFO and expressed his view that the conduct of
the Respondent is far from the highest ethical standards expected
of CA and hence considered him guilty. "
/. The reproduction of only an excerpt from the entire conversation is
greatly prone to the risk of misplacing the context in which certain
words or statements were being made. Only if the whole transcript
of the alleged call is read comprehensively, can it be clear that
such conversation is happening in the context of events that had
been happening around the Respondent in the various cases of
search and seizure. the Respondent and his associate are found to
be discussing the various act of conducU misconduct that are
taking place in the society around them and are seen expressing
their discomfort around it. But at no point in the conversation, has
the Respondent suggested any action taken or any intention of any
such action which could tantamount to professional misconduct.
(b) The PFO fails to establish the fact that the Respondent is prima facie
"guilty" of Professional Misconduct falling within the meaning of the clause (2)
bf Part Ill of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act 1949.For charge
under Clause (2) of Part Ill of the First Schedule, the Respondent has
adequately supplied the information called for, by the Director(Discipline), by
way of Respondent's written submissions and replies. In fact, the Respondent
has submitted five replies to the office of the Director(Discipline) - dated 8
May 2015, 3 Nov 2017 and 20 Nov 2017,01 st January,2020 and 07th
January,2020.ln response to the notice of Director(Discipline) dated 17 Dec
. 2014, the Respondent duly submitted his reply dated 8 May 2015 wherein it
Ce#
CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal (M.No.091903), Delhi in Re: t:;~..
.;;.•;- Page 3 of 5
 T11E I NSTlTUTf. OF CHARTERED AccouNTANTS oF I ~mA
(Set up hy an Act of Parliament)

PPR/P /64/2014-DD/S l/lN F/2 014/80D/304/2017

was clearly stated by the Respondent in no part of the forensic examination

report, the name of Respondent has been mentioned or identified in reference
to any of the calls/conversations that have been mentioned.

The above reply dated 8 May 2015 was submitted by the Respondent even in
absence of any Charge-Sheet and investigation report, which is clear from the
fact that the Director(Discipline) demanded copy of Charge-Sheet from the
Complainant only on 15.06.2016, which Charge-Sheet, investigation report
has not been provided till date and in absence of which, the Respondent
furnished his written-submissions. Further, in response to Respondent letter
dated 03rd November,2017 the Directpr(Discipline) vide letter dated 7
November 2017 allowed the Respondent, additional time to furnish the written
statement by 20 November 2017, which were duly submitted by the
Respondent on 21 st November 2017. Thus, the Director(Oiscipline) cannot
now retract from his statements containing evidentiary value namely letter
dated 7 Nov 2017 of granting additional time to the Respondent to file his
written submissions, which submissions were duly filed and now hold afresh
the Respondent guilty vide the PFO in altogether a new clause i.e. Clause (2)
of Part Ill of First Schedule, under which clause the Respondent was never
charged/implicated as per the SCN dated 17.1 2.2014.

(c) The Respondent reiterated his objections raised on non-fulfillment of

req uirement as stipulated in clause 2 of part IV of First schedule of code of
ethics of ICAI.

(d) The Hon'ble Board of Discipline failed to appreciate the fact that the
Complainant has annexed sham documents with his complaint.

5. The Board has carefully gone through the facts of the case and also the oral
and written representation of CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal. Considering the above
submissions, the Board was of the view that the said contentions were raised by' the
Respondent at the time of hearing also and had been duly countered in the findings
of the Board.

6. Thus, the Board was of the view that as per the findings of the Board as
contained in its report there are sufficient evidences such as self-contained note of
the CBI, forensic examination report, calls transcript, etc. to suggest that the conduct
of the Respondent in allegedly being involved in providing accommodation entries,
fake bills, etc. is unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant and not befitting of the
highest ethical standards expected of him. Thus, it has already been conclusively

~~A- Radhey Shyam Bansal (M.No.091903), Delhi in Re:

Page 4 of 5
 THE I NSTLTUTlt OF CHARTERED AccoUNTANTS OF I NDJA
(Set up hy an Act of Parliament)

PPR/P/64/2014-DD/Sl/lNF/2014/BOD/304/2017

proved that the Respondent is Guilty of Professional and Other Misconduct falling
within the meaning of Clause (2) of Part Ill and Clause (2) of Part IV of the First
Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 read with Section 22 of the said
Act.

7. Upon consideration of the facts of the case, the consequent misconduct

of Radhey Shyam Bansal and keeping in view his written and oral
representation before it, the Board decided to remove the name of CA. Radhey
Shyam Bansal (M.No.091903) from the Register of Members for a period of
Forty Five (45) days and also imposed a fine of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five thousand only) upon him payable within a period of 60 days from the date
of receipt of the Order.

This is issued pursuant to the Order dated 29th April 2024 passed by Hon' ble
High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 5247/2024 namely ICAI Vs R. Vinod Kumar &
others.

Sd/-
CA. PRASANNA KUMAR D
(PRESIDING OFFICER)

Sd/- Sd/-
MRS . •RANI NAIR, (IRS, RETD.) CA. DURGESH KUMAR KABRA
(GOVERNMENT NOMINEE) (MEMBER)

CA. Radhey Shyam Bansal (M.No.091903), Delhi in Re:

Page 5 of 5