JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2021 Challenge has been laid to Ext.P3 certificate and Ext.P8 whereby action for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,540/- against the petitioner was intended to be initiated.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner after his retirement as Superintending Engineer by rendering services in Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA), was appointed on contract basis for a period of three years commencing from 02.05.2003 as University Engineer which was equivalent to the post of Chief Engineer in Public Works Department of State of Kerala. After completion of contract period which ended in May 2006, on 13.11.2008 petitioner was served with a notice from the Director of Local Fund Audit in respect of audit of accounts for the year 2004-2005 ie., that a sum of Rs.66,889/- was found lost in the funds of Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). Along with that an extract of audit report for the year 2004-2005 were also enclosed reflecting excess use of articles for the contract work for maintenance to quarters at ring road and providing clipping carpet in front of Photonics and Central Library at Thrikkakkara campus.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner submitted that said proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioner since the work was given and executed during the period 2002-2003, before the period of joining of the petitioner but, the payment was effected at the time when the petitioner was in office. No notice was given by the authorities for excess calculation in respect of the work done. Further the nature of the official function exercised by the petitioner in no way created any responsibility on the part of the petitioner to conduct any inspection. On receipt of the notice petitioner made an enquiry and found that there was excess usage of bitumen as there was increase in the area when the work was executed. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 23.12.2008 (Ext.P2), the 2nd respondent partially accepted the same but as regarding an amount as Rs.18,540/- found to be due against the petitioner and vide letter dated 28.10.2010 petitioner was directed to pay the amount to the credit of CUSAT, otherwise recovery steps would be initiated as per the powers conferred under sub-section 4 of Section 126 of Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994.

4. It was next contended that liability proceedings should have been initiated against the concerned contractor as alleged dereliction of the duty or negligence much less inaction or lapse was in respect of concerned officer and not the petitioner. Only on 06.08.2012 syndicate of the University decided to proceed with the revenue recovery action for the sum, resulting into issuance of notification. There is no finding of liability on the part of the petitioner so far as the loss factor is concerned nor any enquiry was conducted by the department holding that the petitioner was involved in the alleged loss. Rule 21 stipulates that person responsible and the extent of responsibility of such person for loss detected by the auditor during the course of audit of accounts of local authority shall be fixed correctly by the time of audit on verification of the records and shall be included in the audit report forwarded to the Director. But the audit report did not fix any personal liability or even the extent of liability of the petitioner. So any certificate issued contrary to the provisions of Section 16 and Rule 21 would be void and illegal.

5. Contract period of the petitioner expired on

28.04.2006 whereas proceedings were initiated only in 2008 and the decision to take recovery proceedings, in 2012.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the University raised the objection qua maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that remedy of the petitioner against the action lied elsewhere, i.e., before District Judge. Surcharge certificate Ext.P3 dated 28.12.2010 wa