Rakesh, practising Company Secretary, has accepted the position of Secretarial Auditor previously held by another Company Secretary in practice by communicating through SMS. He also used designation 'Company Law Consulta

Clause 8 of Part I of First Schedule to the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 provides that that a Company Secretary in Practice shall be deemed to be guilty of professional misconduct, if he accepts the position of a Company Secretary in Practice previously held by another Company Secretary in Practice without first communicating with him in writing. The primary requirement under this clause is of prior communication with the previous incumbent. This is intended for reasons of professional courtesy. It would be necessary that the communication, in order to be effective, shall be by a registered letter or by hand with an acknowledgement so that there is positive evidence of the communication having been complete. With the advent of use of the technology, communication by any electronic medium viz., SMS, Whats App and such other Messenger apps is permitted, provided the sender (the PCS taking up the assignment) is able to establish that the message is delivered to the recipient before he or she takes up the assignment. Hence Rakesh is not guilty of professional misconduct in this case. Clause 8 of Part I of First Schedule to the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 provides that a Company Secretary in Practice shall be deemed to be guilty of professional misconduct, if he uses any designation or expressions other than Company Secretary on professional documents, visiting cards, letterheads or signboards, unless it is a degree of a University established by law in India or recognised by the Central Government or a title indicating membership of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India or of any other institution that has been recognised by the Central Government or may be recognised by the Council. Designations like Company Law Consultant, Income Tax Consultant, Corporate Adviser, Investment Adviser, Management Consultant etc. are prohibited. Hence Rakesh is guilty of professional misconduct in this case.