The petitioner was the Secretary of Kinanoor Karinthalam Grama Panchayat from 01.04.1994 to 30.06.1998. During the relevant period, a few drought relief activities were undertaken by the Panchayat. Petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2002. About 10 years after the petitioner left the Panchayat, on 7.8.2007, he was issued Ext.P3 notice by the Secretary of the Panchayat directing to pay a sum of Rs.3,01,453/- to the Panchayat. In Ext.P3, it is stated that the Local Fund Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly has directed to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the said amount, which represents the expenditure of the Panchayat objected to by the auditors pertaining to the period during which the petitioner was the secretary. Along with Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner was given a copy of the relevant portion of the report of the said Committee of the Legislative Assembly. Ext.P4 is the relevant portion of the report of the Local Fund Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly. Ext.P4 indicates that the Panchayat did not maintain Nominal Muster Roll and connected records while undertaking the drought relief works of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the works referred to in Ext.P4 report were duly executed and no loss whatsoever was caused to the Panchayat in connection with the said works. He also maintains the stand that the Nominal Muster Roll and connected records pertaining to the said works were maintained at the relevant time by the Clerk of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, in so far as no loss was caused to the Government, the amounts expended by the Panchayat cannot be recovered from him as his liability, merely for the reason that Nominal Muster Roll and connected records relating to the works are not available. Since the petitioner did not pay the amount covered by Ext.P3 notice, proceedings have been initiated against him by the Panchayat under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for recovery of the amount covered by Ext.P3. Ext.P6 and P7 are the demand notices issued to the petitioner at the instance of the Panchayat under the said Act. Exts.P3, P6 and P7 notices are, therefore, under challenge in this writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the concerned Deputy Director of Kerala Local Fund Audit Department. In the said counter affidavit, it is conceded that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is not a proceeding under Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or a proceeding under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act have been initiated against the petitioner by the Panchayat based on the directions issued by the Local Fund Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P3 demand notice was issued without affording him an opportunity of hearing. He also contended that the petitioner was never put on notice of the audit objections. He has further contended that the claim, if any, of the Panchayat against the petitioner is barred by limitation also.
5. As conceded in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of the Local Fund Audit Department, proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are initiated based on the directions issued by the Local Fund Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly. No provision is brought to my notice conferring power on the Local Fund Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly to direct the Panchayat to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amounts in respect of which objections were raised by the auditors of the Panchayat. Merely for the reason that objections were raised in respect of the amounts expended by the Panchayat, it cannot be said that the same would become the liability of the Secretary of the Panchayat. Such amounts can be recovered as a liability of the officers concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act. In so far as it is conceded that there is no proceedings against the petitioner under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, it has to be held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is without jurisdiction. That apart, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not heard before Ext.P3 notice was issued to him directing payment of the amount raised as objection by the auditors. Ext.P3 proceedings are, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice also.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 notice issued by the Panchayat and P6 and P7 notices issued by the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act are quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE //true copy// P.A. To Judge smv