Disrepute to the profession
Arjun (A) — (chanting) Hare Krishna! Hare Krishna!
Shrikrishna (S) Vatsa, whenever you think of me with devotion, I appear before you!
A — ‘He Bhagwan’ ! Trahi maam! Please save me.
S — Why? What happened? Surely, some one of your friends is in trouble with your Institute.
A — Yes. For that only I have to meet you so often; every month!
S — Tell me, in the first place why do you people accept the assignments which you cannot carry out properly?
A — Bhagwan, this complaint is not for doing the work negligently; but for not accepting the work!
S — Is it so? Tell me what really happened?
A — See, my friend’s firm was empanelled with some Regulator’s office for audit of its members. He did the audits assigned to him diligently for a few years.
S— Then what happened?
A — For 2013-14, audits of 3 such member units were allotted to his firm.
S — Good.
A — He also received the allotment of audit of the Regulator’s office itself. In a routine course, he communicated his acceptance and within a few days, went to the Regulator’s office to discuss the work.
S — Very good.
A — The officer over there expressed surprise as to how the firm was allotted that work, when audit of 3 member units had already been allotted to them.
S— Strange!
A — The officer also said that the scope of work was much larger and that the allotment was for 2 years probably to compensate for lower annual fees.
S — Then?
A — My friend noticed that the scope was really very wide and his firm was not equipped or geared up to do certain aspects of the work.
S — Such as?
A — Like system audit.
S — Oh!
A — So he came back, and immediately wrote to them that he would not be able to do the audit assignment.
S — Fair enough! Was he too late?
A — Not at all! He received the letter in mid June, met them in 10 days and by end June, he informed his inability. There were at least two more months for the deadline. But still, to his surprise, the Regulator cancelled his empanelment altogether for two years. They did not even give any opportunity of being heard.
S— Very surprising. I feel, it was some ego issue of the person in the Regulator’s office. Did they file a complaint?
A — No. They just passed on the information that the member’s conduct would bring disrepute to the profession, since he refused the work after having accepted it once.
S— Really, this is rather too much!
A — That’s what I am saying. Now-a-days, such complaints from Regulators are becoming too rampant.
S — Yes. MCA is also very active now.
A — Good that you mentioned about MCA.
S — Why?
A — My another friend received a notice from ROC’s office regarding the audit of a company. It contained 30 to 40 queries. Most of them were rather trivial. Actually, while scrutinising, one particular reality was overlooked by them and therefore, most of the queries were redundant.
S— So he must have replied to them.
A — Of course, he did. But unfortunately what they do is without applying their mind on your replies, they simply forward the queries to ICAI!
S— That means, waste of time of the member as well as the directorate of ICAI.
A — True! MCA could have easily dropped many of the points and sent only the points not explained to their satisfaction.
S— I agree. If what you say is true, there should be proper representation to the Regulator’s office.
A — It is becoming unbearable. Many of the members are keen to run away from the profession. They feel, the situation will still worsen in the years to come!
S— All of you collectively must seek some way out. Running away is not the solution.
A — True. That is why ‘hum aapki sharan mei hein!’
Om shanti !!!!!
Note:
The above dialogue shows how a Member should be cautious enough while dealing with Government authorities / Regulators. In the above case, had Arjuna’s friend verified the scope of work properly before accepting the assignment, he would have been saved from all troubles created later on. One may argue that the above act does not bring any disrepute to the profession as such.
