Council Affairs: CCM Tarun Ghia's explosive E-mail regarding Disciplinary matters! Is this why DD was shunted out?

This e-mail by CCM from West region - Tarun Ghia, to his Council colleagues, is shocking, eye popping and opens a Pandora's box on how ICAI's disciplinary mechanism is working ( or otherwise ) .. Mr. Ghia has made serious allegations, insinuating "criminality" by certain "wrongdoers" with regard to disciplinary cases.. Mr. Ghia rightly, at the end of his mail, demands that " ... the entire matter verbatim be informed to the members of the ICAI  so as to give them correct picture. "

So is this the reason why the Disciplinary Director was recently shunted out ? Does it mean there is substance in Mr. Ghia's allegations? If so, what action is being taken against the alleged "wrongdoers" ? This mail shows  to what extent the rot has set in at ICAI.. some of us could see this coming a few years ago...

Sub : DC matters- My earlier MOGI- wrong doers and their protectors indulged in false, fabricated, concealed versions- opinion is connived and convenient -

 

Dear Council Colleagues,

 

In the context of the DC reports u/s. 21D  and the matter of general interest raised  by me in the preceding council meetings, the  opinion received from Retd. Justice S. B.  Sinha was circulated  on the Council table. 

I have gone through the opinion so circulated and I find that the opinion has been obtained by concealing vital and true facts, by presenting  false versions, by misrepresentations,  by twisting the facts of the  case, by manipulations and in  a  motivated manner.   Even Retd. Justice Sinha has  been manipulative and has proceeded on the pre determined line and logically on the lines expected of him.  It is a clear case of malpractices in obtaining the desired opinion and  a connived opinion. It is a clear case of malpractice.   

 

The opinion disregards contents of my MOGI,  the long correspondence by me  with the then President CA. Subodh Agrawal and  my correspondence with the Disciplinary Director Mrs.  Vandana Nagpal. Major parts of all these have not been either presented before retd. Justice Sinha  and  the some parts have been ignored by retd. Justice Sinha.

By entering into such malpractices the wrong doers and their protectors have further indulged  in criminal activities.

The audio recordings were demanded in my  MOGI and even earlier. Mrs.  Vandana Nagpal and CA. Subodh Agarwal had the written communications of my demand of  the audio recordings. The MOGI was discussed  in the council meetings.  Neither in the response to my written communications nor in the council meetings  ever a statement was made by any one that the audio recordings were already destroyed. Retd. Justice Sinha  has written in some detail, the law and process of the disciplinary proceedings. However, Retd. Justice Sinha could have found faults into the same by  perusing the provisions and by  perusing all the relevant material. However, he did not do so probably because for giving opinion he did not have to look into all the relevant papers. But Retd. Justice Sinha could have  written  that when the disputes were known to the wrong doers, they  should not have destroyed the audio recordings. However, according to retd. Justice sinha, there was no wrong in their writing such wrong things to the council and to the concerned parties. In  fact,  the entire opinion of retd. Justice Sinha would indicate that he would not pass any strictures against the wrong doers for the reason that according to his opinion,  the wrong doers were never wrong doers and their wrong doing were their right doing so much so that, as it transpires, when the DC reports were sent to the concern parties, the reports were mentioned  as signed by CA. Tarun Ghia whereas in fact the same were not signed.  However,  according to retd. Justice Sinha  the wrong doers writing knowingly falsely that the DC reports were signed by CA. Tarun Ghia, was not a wrong at all.  Retd. Justice Sinha did not find it necessary to call it a wrong doing. According to retd. Justice Sinha, as if the wrong doers were entitled to fasely write  that the DC reports were signed by CA. Tarun Ghia.

 

The vital facts, the vital correspondence between myself and CA. Subodh Agarwal and DC Director CA. Vandana Nagpal have been concealed.  The opinion has been given on part of the papers and documents and supported by convenient version not at all backed by evidences and even though evidences are speaking otherwise.   

We have all learnt the basics of logic  in our CA studies  that conclusions are drawn on the basis of premises with the result that if the premises are false and incorrect the conclusions are also wrong, incorrect and false. Since most of the data provided to Justice Sinha are false, fabricated, lies and full of concealment, therefore the opinion of Justice Sinha is also wrong, false, incorrect, manipulated  and not tenable.   Even on the standalone basis Justice Sinha’s opinion is wrong and malafide because there are many contractions in the data presented to him and the case required him to inquire about certain pertinent and relevant points. By some due diligence and pertinent inquiries he could have compiled the complete and correct data. By due diligence, he could have  said that certain versions not backed at all by the evidences cannot be the basis of his opinion.  My long correspondence with the head of ICAI amounted to correspondence with the ICAI. Such correspondence has been concealed from the facts of the case. Many of the contents of my MOGI have been ingnored  in the facts of the case.

Let my this letter be sent  to retd. Justice Sinha by those people who obtained such opinion by presenting lies , dishonest data and by concealing more relevant and pertinent facts.

Since I have stated on the Council table that I will sign the balance of the reports after my views are incorporated and I am decided to fullfill my commitment.

Retd. Justice Sinha has exceeded his brief also.  I had charged the wrong doers amongst others  of forgery, criminal breach of trust and misrepresentations.  However, Retd. Justice Sinha has conveniently addressed  the issue of forgery only ignoring the aspects of misrepresentation and criminal breach of trust. This is probably  because it is the contention of the wrong doers that  this case does not attract forgery.   Since all of them are also clear that this  is a clear case of mis representation and criminal breach of trust therefore to  give an opinion that this case does not attract  the charges of criminal breach of trust and misrepresentation is not possible and therefore the aspects  of criminal breach of trust and misrepresentation have been  kept unaddressed in the opinion of retd. Justice Sinha.  Retd. Justice Sinha has addressed the issue of forgery because he is able to give an opinion that it is not forgery but since he is not able to write that it is not a case of criminal breach of trust and misrepresentation, he has refrained to write about the same because he is not prepared to write any adverse thing about the wrong doers. My MOGI also addressed all three charges. However, retd. Justice Sinha would read only one charge and would deal with only one charge.

I  had written from time to time and consistently to the then head of the ICAI  i.e. the then President CA. Subodh Kumar Agrawal  my strong opposition to the DC reports being prepared and circulated without my consent and without incorporating my views therein.   Writings to the head of the Institute amounted to writing to the Institute. The then President not informing the truth to the Council is not reflecting in the opinion at all.  According to retd. Justice Sinha,  the then President and the DC Director not informing to the Council about my  opposing the DC reports was not a wrong at all.  According to retd. Justice Sinha, they had no duty to write truth to the Council and to the concerned parties and they failing in their duties knowingly is not a wrong at all. According to retd. Justice Sinha,  they were entitled to inform the Council and the parties falsely that  I had singed all the reports and that the reports were unanimous. My communications to the Disciplinary Director Mrs. Vandana Nagpal have also not been reflecting in the opinion of retd. Justice Sinha at all.  The contents of my MOGI  have not been fully reflecting in the opinion.  Whereas contents of  my MOGI are fully supported by the cogent evidences but the version presented  to retd. Justice Sinha  is lacking support of such cogent evidences. On the contrary the version provided to retd. Justice Sinha is  in contradiction to the cogent evidences. Therefore, retd. Justice Sinha should have  pointed out this to the  persons who went to him with fabricated facts of the case and either Justice Sinha should have refrained from expressing the opinion or he should have dealt with the contradictions and should have taken a line that the  version which is backed by the evidences is a reliable version of facts  rather than a version having no support of the evidences.  However, retd. Justice Sinha has done exactly reverse. He did not even find it necessary to point out that the versions of mine are  different than those presented by the wrong doers. Under such circumstances, I have no hesitation in writing that the convenient and conniving opinion has been written by retd. Justice Sinha  at the instance of the wrong doers only. The wrong doers have been successful in  obtaining opinion to suit their   purposes  by presenting their own versions. It is not an opinion  obtained by the ICAI but it is an opinion obtained by the interested and accused parties at the cost of the ICAI. I am sure the opinion must have cost lot many lakhs of rupees because such  desired opinion does not come so reasonably.  I would want that since the opinion is for the benefit of the wrong doers therefore the fees should also be borne and paid by the wrong doers only. But ICAI funds are to be used to protect and defend such wrong doers only.  The members and the students are doing charity for such purposes.

The episode also raises an issue as to how  the ICAI obtains opinion in the context of contentious issues.

Therefore,  I have no hesitation in reiterating that by  entering into such malpractices the wrong doers and their protectors are further indulging in further criminal activities.

I have also no hesitation in assuring that I would be incorporating my views in the balance of the draft DC orders  like I earlier incorporated some DC cases.  I should be provided the material demanded by me and the draft orders  by email in word form so that I can incorporate my views in track mode. In fact, all along my entire correspondence and contents of my MOGI would corroborate that at no point of time I had refused to sign the DC reports in respect of the cases which I had heard as a member of the DC. My writings were very clear that I would sign only after applying my mind to all relevant material.  My writings were very clear that I would not sign in back date as was being expected from me.

The newspapers have reported very wrongly the entire matter and the version  reported in the newspapers reads that the deliberated  half truths have  been provided to the newspapers. Under the circumstances, it will be in the fitness of the things that the entire matter verbatim be informed to the members of the ICAI  so as to give them correct picture. 

I think by this letter, I have once again made my position very clear.

Regards,

CA. Tarun Jamnadas Ghia,

CCM, ICAI. 

 

Source Email received by this site