Under Sections 21A and 21B of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the disciplinary mechanism of the ICAI operates through two distinct bodies the Board of Discipline and the Disciplinary Committee. Which of the following correctly distinguishes their respective jurisdictions?

The disciplinary framework under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 bifurcates jurisdiction between two bodies based on the gravity of misconduct. The Board of Discipline under Section 21A is constituted by the Council and comprises a presiding officer with experience in law, one Council-elected member, and one Central Government nominee it has jurisdiction only over misconduct falling under the First Schedule, which covers relatively less serious professional lapses. The Disciplinary Committee under Section 21B handles the graver category of misconduct falling under the Second Schedule (serious professional misconduct) or cases involving misconduct under both Schedules simultaneously. Upon finding guilt, the Disciplinary Committee has wide powers: it can reprimand the member, remove the member's name permanently from the Register, or impose a fine up to ₹5 lakh reflecting the seriousness with which the Act treats Second Schedule violations. Both bodies operate under the Director (Discipline), who heads the Disciplinary Directorate and is responsible for conducting preliminary investigations before a case is placed before either body. Importantly, both the Board of Discipline and the Disciplinary Committee are vested under Section 21C with the powers of a civil court for purposes of summoning witnesses, requiring discovery of documents, and receiving evidence on affidavits.