Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 300
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM
M.Thangarajan - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner - Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD) 809 of 2001
Decided On : 27 February 2004
The main legal point established is that surcharge proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act require actual loss or misappropriation of temple funds, and irregular expenditure alone may not justify surcharge.
Headnote:
Surcharge - Executive Officer's Loan for Temple Festival - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Section 90(2), Section 33(3) - The court held that the Executive Officer's act of obtaining a loan without prior permission did not result in any actual loss to the temple, and therefore, the surcharge proceedings initiated against him were not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, an Executive Officer at a temple, obtained a loan for a temple festival without prior permission. The audit department recommended surcharge proceedings against him for causing a loss to the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Executive Officer's act did not result in any actual loss to the temple, and therefore, the surcharge proceedings were not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Executive Officer's act of obtaining a loan without prior permission resulted in a loss to the temple, justifying surcharge proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 90(2) and Section 33(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which allow surcharge proceedings if there is irregular, illegal, or improper expenditure causing loss or waste of property. The court interpreted these provisions to require actual loss or misappropriation for surcharge to be justified.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the surcharge order against the Executive Officer.
This revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tanjore in C.M.A.No.7/2000 confirming the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in O.P.No.128/95.
2. The revision petitioner was working as the Executive Officer, between 21.3.1982 and 8.3.1993 at Arulmighu Brahmapureeswarar Temple, Punnaiyur. For the purpose of the temple festival on 28.3.1993, the Government had not provided fund in time, which they used to provide as Dastic Allowance, despite the request made by the Executive Officer of the temple. The Executive Officer and the governing body of the temple viz., Trustees, had decided to obtain a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the deposit amount made by the temple in the bank. In pursuance of the decision taken by the governing body of the temple, informing the authorities concerned and in anticipation of the approval, the Executive Officer/revision petitioner, obtained a loan of Rs.10,000/- on 23.3.1983 and celebrated the festival on 28.3.1983.
3. When the temple accounts were audited by the Audit Department, they had noticed the irregularity committed by the Executive Officer, viz., the revision petitioner, in obtaining a loan, that too, without the prior permission of the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., thereby causing a loss of Rs.4,485.35 by way of interest. Therefore, the audit department had recommended for departmental proceedings, for the irregularity committed by the then Executive Officer of the temple viz., the revision petitioner. In pursuance of the audit report, notice was issued to the Executive Officer, directing him to make good the loss sustained by the temple, in view of the loan obtained by him, thereby depriving the interest to the temple to the tune of Rs.4,485.35. The Executive Officer had failed to pay the amount and thereafter, a surcharge proceedings was initiated and in R.C.No.22421/87/D3, the concerned authority had passed a surcharge order on 22.11.1974, directing him to pay the amount due to the temple, which is estimated as loss, because of the irregularity committed by the Executive Officer.
4. The revision petitioner, questioning the surcharge order dated 22.11.1974, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act') filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in O.P.No.128/95, contending that by obtaining a loan of Rs.10,000/-, he had not spent any amount for his benefit, whereas the amounts were spent only for the celebration of the festival of the temple, since the Government had failed to provide the amount within the time and therefore, actually there was no loss of any kind to the temple and the surcharge order passed against him is not maintainable and is liable to the set aside.
5. The respondent H.R. & C.E. opposed the application contending, that the Executive Officer is expected to perform the festival, provided there is sufficient funds in the temple, that he is not expected to borrow loan and spend the same, making the temple, liable to pay the debt, and that the conduct of the revision petitioner, in obtaining the loan, that too without prior permission of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., which is mandatory, is illegal. In this view, they have further urged, that by the act of the Executive Officer, there was a loss, by way of payment of interest to the tune of Rs.4,485.35 and this should be recovered from the person concerned and therefore, surcharging the revision petitioner by the authority concerned is proper, not required to be nullified.
6. The learned Subordinate Judge, after elaborate enquiry, hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner exceeded his limit in obtaining a loan of Rs.10,000/-, thereby making the temple, to pay interest, that too without the written permission of the Commissioner and for the act done by him, he has to suffer, satisfying the surcharge order. In this way, the petition came to be dismissed on 12.1
