CS Rohan, a company secretary in practice availed loan against his personal investments from a bank. He issued two cheques towards repayment of the said loan as per terms of sanction of loan. Both the cheques were return

A Company Secretary is expected to maintain highest standards of integrity even in his personal affairs and any deviation from these standards even in his non-professional work would expose him to disciplinary action. A member of the Institute is subject to disciplinary action under section 21 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 if he is found guilty of any professional or other misconduct. As per Clause 2 of Part IV of the First schedule to the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, a member of the Institute whether in practice or not shall be deemed to be guilty of other misconduct if in the opinion of the council brings disrepute to the profession or the Institute as a result of his action whether or not related to the professional work. The question whether a particular act or omission constitutes other misconduct should be based on facts and circumstances of each case. Further, Part III of the Second Schedule to the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 provides that, a member of the Institute whether in practice or not shall be deemed to be guilty of other misconduct if he is held guilty by any civil or criminal court for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months. Under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person for the discharge of any liability is returned by the bank unpaid either for insufficiency of funds or the cheque amount exceeds the arrangements made by the drawer of the cheque the drawer of the cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence. In the given case the cheque was dishonored with the remark insufficient funds. Therefore, CS Rohan may be liable for misconduct under Clause 2 of Part IV of the First Schedule of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, if the Council is of the opinion that the offence under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is due to negligence or willful act of CS Rohan.