I am expessing my opinion on various caluse of the code of conduct for students
1. In case of clause 2.3- We are trainees not a full fledged CA and trainee may make some mistakes and it is the duty of the principal to rectify those mistakes, guide and supervise the work of articles. If something goes wrong under their supervision, the articles should not be blamed because it is the duty of principal as it is his own signature. Otherwise, whats the difference between a CA or Article trainee? Does CA only have the duty to sign the report prepared by Articles?
If yes then why not give the power to sign on the report to articles.
2. In case of Regulation 66- there is an executive committee to take action against articles assistant for any breach in any regulation of the Chartered Accountant regulation 1988 but may I ask is there any committee to take any action against any member in case of breach of any clause of the deed of articles or the code of conduct itself? Take clause 4.4 for example.
3. In case of clause 5.1- Emergency leave is allowed if supported by reasonable explanation. May I ask who is there to judge reasonableness of the leave? If that person is principal itself then any person will have a doubt on its Genuiness. Again even after intimating the principal of ones intention to go on leave, principal is left with every power not to sanction those even if it is under the limit mentioned in regulation 58 i.e. one - sixth of the total period served.
I know my opinion on this so called code of conduct for students may hurt ego of some high esteemed member of the institute and I sincerely appologise for this, but at the first look it seems that it is to cover the interest of the member of the institute as well as it destroys the concept of articleship
Thanking you,
Regards,
Pratik Kumar
CAclubindia
