The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the respondent to initiate surcharge proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and the Surcharge Rules, along with the procedural requirements for issuing a show cause notice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.461/2013/A6, dated 05.06.2014 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.)

1. This writ petition was filed in the year 2014 as against the second show cause notice issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No. 461/2013/A6, dated 05.06.2014, pursuant to an audit conducted on the affairs of the Kesampatti Village Panchayat.

2. The petitioner is an erstwhile Panchayat President of Kesampatti Village for a period from 2006 to 2011. The expenditure of the Village Panchayat for the year 2006 to 2011 were subjected for audit in the year 2013 and the respondent found that the petitioner has caused a loss of Rs.10,80,919/- to the Panchayat and therefore a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner as per Section 193 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Surcharge, Disallowance and Charge) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter called as Surcharge Rules), calling upon the petitioner to offer his explanation, if any, within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner has offered his explanation, which was placed before the Village Committee (Grama Saba) and on the request of the Grama Saba, the expenditure which has been spent by the petitioner in excess to the tune of Rs.10,89,919/- was reduced to Rs. 79,050/-. Thereafter, a further notice was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to pay the reduced amount to avoid further proceedings as per the Rules. The second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.79,050/- is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without following the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994. According to the learned counsel, if any loss has been detected in Panchayat fund shall only be recovered as contemplated under Section 234 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, by filing a civil Suit. Therefore, the surcharge proceedings initiated by the respondent is not in accordance with law. None of the provisions of the Panchayat Act provides for recovery of amount by initiating surcharge proceedings and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, does not contain specific reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner was served as the President for the period from 2006 to 2011. The audit was conducted in the year 2010 and notice was issued in the year 2013. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Issue and Disposal of Audit Report of Village Panchayats) Rules, 2000 submits that the Deputy Block Development Officer of the Panchayat Union is the auditor appointed by the Government under Section 193(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Therefore, the audit, if any, ought to have been conducted only by the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Block Development Officer of the Panchayat Union. However, in this case, the audit was conducted by the Assistant Director of Audit, who is an incompetent authority and on this ground also, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that one Azhagan of Kesampatti Village has filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.931 of 2011 as against this petitioner that this petitioner as a Panchayat President from 2006-2007 and 2008 -2009 has caused loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.12 Lakhs to the Government and he has also submitted a representation to the concerned authorities on 09.10.2011 and requested the authorities to act upon it. This Court by order dated 07.02.2013 has disposed of the writ petition wi