The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the time limit under Sub rule (11) of Rule 20 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Rules and its impact on the validity of charge/surcharge certificates.

Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P4.

ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction and quash Ext.P4 to the extent it holds that the action taken against the petitioner is not time barred.

iii) To declare issuance of ext.p3 on the petitioner as contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 20 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Rules.

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction and quash Ext.P3.

v) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to initiate appropriate and positive action to execute the directions of the court below contained in paragraph 14 of Ext.P4.

vi) To stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3 and Ext.P4.

2. Petitioner is a retired Municipal Secretary of the Perumbavoor Municipality. She retired from service on 31.05.2002. She was served with a surcharge notice on the basis of an audit report for the financial year 1999-2000 seeking her explanation over the findings made in the audit imputing that she had authorised and made illegal payment to the tune of Rs.80,084/-. She submitted a reply. Second respondent after considering her explanation waived a sum of Rs.14,333/- from the sum shown in the audit report, and served a surcharge certificate for the remaining sum of Rs.65,715/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of the surcharge certificate. She challenged Ext.P3 certificate under Section 16(3) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, hereinafter called the Act, filing a petition before the District Court, Ernakulam. Learned District Judge after hearing both sides dismissed that petition vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Respondents have entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit.

4. I heard the counsel on both sides. The one and only point canvassed at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 order passed by the learned District Judge is based on the infringement of sub rule (11) of Rule 20 Kerala Local Fund Audit Rules, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, in the serving of surcharge certificate within the time stipulated. Reliance is placed on decisions rendered by this Court in two writ petitions, namely, judgment dated 10.11.2006 in W.P. (C).No.23800 of 2003 and judgment dated 13.1.2009 in W.P.(C).No.27559 of 2007, holding that a surcharge certificate served on person proceeded against beyond the period prescribed under sub rule (11) of Rule 20 is fatal and in such a case surcharge certificate is liable to be quashed.

5. The factual aspects involved leading to the issue of surcharge notice and, later, surcharge certificate against the petitioner need not be adverted to in the present case, since the challenge against such notice and certificate is canvassed only on the basis of the infringement of the Rule referred to above which has been stated to be fatal in two decisions rendered by this court holding that such delay would render the proceedings of surcharge vitiated and liable to be quashed. Both the decisions referred to by the learned counsel, no doubt, have given expression to the view canvassed holding that the time limit fixed under Sub rule (11) of Rule 20 of the Rules for issuing of charge/surcharge certificate on the person proceeded against is decisive and infringement thereof would render the entire proceedings vitiated and liable to be quashed.

6. The question posed for consideration is whether the time limit of four months for issuing the charge/surcharge certificate from the date of receipt of charge/surcharge notice by the person proceeded against is inviolable whatever be the reasons thereof. Sub rule (11) of Rule 20 of the Rules reads thus:

“The charge/surcharge certificate shall be served on the person res