The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has appealed in the Telangana High Court against the verdict of a single judge quashing the notices issued to YCP MP P. Vijayasai Reddy, the second accused in the Jaganmohan Reddy’s disproportionate assets cases, for investigation.
It said that it is not right to quash the notices without examining the antecedents of the case. On October 23 last year, the ICAI had issued notices to Vijayasai Reddy to appear for investigation on violation of the code of professional conduct.
He filed a petition in the Telangana High Court challenging them. The single judge passed a verdict on July 30 this year allowing it. The ICAI has appealed against this verdict stating single judge did not consider their argument that the investigation into Vijayasai Reddy’s petition did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court.
It said that Vijayasai Reddy performed his duties from the Chennai office and the ICAI office was also located there, and therefore he had to file a petition in the Madras High Court. The investigation against Vijayasai is at an early stage and the disciplinary committee has not taken any decision against him.
It said that the investigation will be conducted as per the rules brought in 2007 under the Chartered Accountants Act. It said that the High Court cannot interfere under Article 226 while an institution is conducting an investigation. It clarified that the High Court should not be approached while there is an appellate authority to appeal against its orders.
The ICAI disciplinary committee has found that YSRCP MP Vijayasai Reddy has committed professional misconduct as a chartered accountant. It said that Vijayasai played a key role in diverting contributions into investments contrary to the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act by acting as a financial advisor to Jagan and his group companies.
It explained that the ICAI Disciplinary Directorate had studied his role thrice and that various officers had unanimously submitted reports to the disciplinary committee alleging professional misconduct.